In my last post I explained why it makes logical sense for men to greatly limit the amount of “courtship” they offer women in today’s post sexual revolution sexual and marriage marketplace (SMP & MMP). But this leaves the question of what this means for women, and how they should rationally respond to men’s rational choices.

For women who want to meet and marry a suitable man.

The key to answering the question involves understanding the woman’s primary objective. If the goal is to maximize the amount of courtship she receives, skip below to the section on courting for sex. If a woman’s goal is to meet a suitable husband and get married, then she should focus on that goal and not worry about how much courtship she soaks up in the process. There is nothing magical about meal at a restaurant or other forms of semi-expensive entertainment which conveys the important character traits of a prospective husband. At best these serve as a (very poor) barometer of the man’s financial success.

Many women would also argue that a man spending money on her during a date (especially early dates) expresses a sincere desire to get to know her. In this sense paying for a date serves as a sort of courting earnest money; it demonstrates that the man has some skin in the game. However, the reason women want this proof-of-seriousness is exactly why it isn’t rational for men to offer it. In the past courtship was not only restricted in duration, but it was also generally restricted to people in the man and woman’s extended social circle. While the couple might be strangers to each other, there were generally enough social connections for them (or their families) to learn some basic information about the status and character of the other person before deciding to court. If a man had a history of being a scoundrel, the woman could learn this without ever agreeing to court him. Likewise, if a woman had a history of not taking courtship seriously and stringing along suitors, the man could learn this upfront.

Contrast the past with today, where large numbers of women not only want to extend their period of courtship to a decade and a half, but where they want to date extensively outside of their extended social circle. Anytime you are dealing with strangers it creates a trust deficit. Since men are traditionally the ones who bear the risks in courtship, it isn’t surprising that women want men to demonstrate their seriousness first. However, the problem is that women aren’t doing anything similar in kind. Commenter Robert Slanton linked to an article about a Toronto woman who uses online dating as a source of free meals and entertainment. The problem with women expecting men to expend money on getting to know them is the issue of trusting a stranger runs both ways. While the Toronto woman is unusual in her brazenness, she isn’t the only woman to figure out that online dating is a way to get free dinners.

I assume at this point some of my female readers are saying:

But I’m not like that, and since I’m not men should be willing to pay for a date if they want to get to know me!

Of course you aren’t. But how can a man find out you aren’t like that?

He just needs to ask me on a date and get to know me.

Women who think this way aren’t thinking this all the way through. They are saying men should pay upfront to find out if they are serious or not. The problem is, this makes it nearly impossible to avoid becoming the dupe for women like the one in Toronto. The only way to know she isn’t gaming the system is to enable other women to game the system.

The good news.

As I mentioned before, there is nothing magical about a paid date when it comes to getting to know someone. Men and women can get to know each other and experience attraction for each other in a huge variety of casual and formal interactions. The average woman complaining about not being able to “meet men” (date) has in fact already met very large numbers of single men. Casting a wide net is an excellent idea, but the perception of abundance can at times create a perception that the woman is in a different SMP and especially MMP league than she really is. However, even with this and men’s general pullback from courtship the vast majority of young women do still manage to marry. With this in mind, here is my advice to women looking to find a husband:

Be young, or more accurately get serious about finding a husband as soon as possible. This not only allows you to choose when your own hand is strongest, but also when your choices are greatest. Picking last is always a terrible strategy, and this is no less true for finding a husband than when buying produce.

Keep your chastity. Women’s happiness with marriage declines with partner count, and their expectations also rise (without an increase in options).

Look for market inefficiencies. There is a time around a man’s early twenties when he starts to really show his promise. Such men are just starting to become attractive to women, but haven’t yet gotten used to being attractive. These men are excellent marriage prospects, especially for a woman a few years younger than them. Learn to identify and locate these young men and place yourself in a position to interact with them.

Don’t lose hope. Just because few men are willing to take you out on paid dates to get to know you, doesn’t rule out the likelihood that a significant number of men would be willing to marry you. Put another way, just because you may be a bad bet for (traditional, expensive) courtship doesn’t mean you are a bad bet for marriage. The same data which shows that women are having a harder time marrying also shows that the vast majority of women still marry, and some of them are marrying well into their 30s. Take advantage of the social interactions you already have to meet men. Women are better than men at sending signals of interest while keeping plausible deniability; don’t be afraid to use this when you think a single man in your larger circle might be a good match. You don’t want to ask him out, but you should probably help him figure out that it is a good idea for him to initiate either dates or other interactions.

Be as kind and private as possible when rejecting interested men. Rejection comes with the territory, but you don’t want to cause Mr. Right to have reason to avoid making contact.

If your goal is to marry but not to marry now, let your social circle know you aren’t dating at the moment because you aren’t ready to look for a husband; then follow through with this and don’t date or encourage interest until you are ready to seriously look for a husband.

When you are ready to look for a husband, let your social circle know this is the case. This will (somewhat) filter out the men who express interest in you for sex, but this filtering is a positive. It would in fact be better if it were more effective at filtering out interest from men looking for sex.

Make as honest an assessment of your MMP league as possible. You don’t want to set your sights too low, but you also don’t want to turn away men you will only learn too late were your best prospects. Also, be sure not to confuse the league of man you can attract for sex with the league of man you can attract for marriage.

Don’t settle: If after spending a suitable period of time with a man you find you aren’t falling for him, cut it off (gently) and move along. Don’t worry, another woman will almost undoubtedly be able to fall for this man (if he wasn’t generally attractive you wouldn’t even be considering him).

Don’t ask a man to be your celibate boyfriend. Waiting for marriage is a good thing, unless you are using it as an excuse to keep the man as a beta orbiter while you consider other options. If you aren’t anxious for the day you marry and can have sex with the man, cut it off. Otherwise, keep the term of your engagement to a minimum.

Courting for sex.

If the goal is maximum courtship, then a woman should (logically, not morally) choose to be courted for sex. There are a number of ways to go about this same basic goal, including looking for a one night hookup, a fling, or a boyfriend. Given the basic similarities between these things, the strategy for finding such men is essentially the same. Many women also use hookups as their intended path to finding a husband.

Being courted for sex is a woman’s best chance to soak up maximum attention and resources from men because the payoff tends to be immediate. While it is fairly unlikely that a woman will marry in the near term, the chances that she will have casual sex in the same time frame are much higher. By moving into this space you lower the risks for men who offer you courtship and will therefore have more takers.

Keep in mind that men who best know how to woo for sex also know that paying for dates before you have sex with them is a terrible bet. However, if you are pleasant and attractive enough and continue having sex with them they will be more likely to pay for dates. Note that players have turned the tables here, and it is now women who have to first demonstrate skin in the game.

Still doesn’t change the fate of marriages or the legal control women have over their husbands. I would put a caveat at the beginning of all these articles though. It’s not just the changes in how women extend and abuse courtship leading to men declining to court them. It’s also the rampant abuse of marriage itself.

I guess what I’m saying is another reason men are withdrawing from courtship is the abundantly clear notion that the actual purpose of courtship, i.e. a lifelong marriage and family, is just no longer really there; and as such, even if all Dalrock’s suggestions were put in place, it wouldn’t fix the underlying problem that courtship doesn’t really have a place in modern relationships.

When men state their reasons why they have withdrawn from courtship, stopped showing chivalry, and sensibly began avoiding the toxic women of today’s society, ALL women can be guaranteed to say two things: “I’m not like that”, and “Not all women are like that that”.

The way the question is worded is absurd: because nearly all women would be really happy if all unattractive (beta) withdrew from courtship. Courtship from an unattractive (beta) man feels threatening and degradind to nearly all women.

The problem that most women the only “suitable man” is an attractive (alpha) man, and their main, most urgent interest in him is to have sex with him and as many other attractive (alpha) men as they can, until the last moment just before they hit the wall.

So the post instead of being titled:

“How should women respond to men withdrawing from courtship? [ … ] For women who want to meet and marry a suitable man.”

should be titled;

*How should women respons to alphas getting easy hookups from other women? For women who have nearly hit the wall and want an alpha to invest in them and commit to them for no reason whatever”.

What instead the bulk of this post is about is really about is the tiny percentage of mutant women who don’t see as their highest priority to maximize their tingles and want to have some kind of long term reciprocal investment and commitment, including sex, with an average man.

[another reason men are withdrawing from courtship is the abundantly clear notion that the actual purpose of courtship, i.e. a lifelong marriage and family, is just no longer really there]

From other sites and talking with women what they consider the purpose of courtiship from an attractive (alpha) man is a “relationship”, and “relationship” for most women means giving a man the opportunity to invest in her and commit to her, in exchange for her taking the responsibility to make all the important decisions such as whether to have or abort her children, choosing the father of the children she wants to have, whether she works or not, whether she wants to continue the relationship or not, which stuff she takes as her own when she decides to end the relationship.

Keep your chastity. Women’s happiness with marriage declines with partner count, and their expectations also rise (without an increase in options).

It should be noted that women, especially traditional Christian women, insist that the ‘acceptable’ number of sex partners a woman has before marriage is a figure that keeps on rising. This point should include an insistence that virginity is best, 1 is tolerable with leeway, 2 or more is too many, and Christian women who demand that 12 be seen as acceptable, are engaging in brinkswomanship that will be costly for the next generation of women.

It seems to me that the simplest way for men to safeguard their reproductive rights at present is to form communities that take a firm stance against allowing in unmarried women above 25, single mothers, frivorcees on their second marriages etc. The only adult women who should be accepted in such communities would be the wives of the male participants.

If a woman does not want to contribute with children to the men of a community, but still benefits from that community in some way (even emotionally), she is a social parasite, no matter how economically independent she is.

This is an EXCELLENT post. I’m copying the first section of this post into a word document for our elder daughters to read.

However, if you are pleasant and attractive enough and continue having sex with them they will be more likely to pay for dates. Note that players have turned the tables here, and it is now women who have to first demonstrate skin in the game.

LOL! Hmm. A woman who has sex outside of marriage in exchange for resources. I feel like there is another word for that in English…

I have to agree with all who are saying that if the Endgame is still marriage, then courtship for anything other than sex isn’t worth it for the man.
The woman will get legal rights to the man’s resources and children, and in some states, guaranteed alimony for life, regardless of how she behaves before, during, or after the marriage.

So why exactly is a man pursuing a woman in order to put himself in a position to be frivorced whenever she so desires?

The most nuclear rejection I ever got was that she wasn’t feeling it. In fact in all my endevors with the opposite sex I don’t have too many horror stories. Perhaps women stay a little more sane with you if you don’t plunder their bodies before marriage.

I’ll go ahead and let you guys flame away at me for pointing out the obvious.

The woman/women who did their best at “nuclear rejections” were doing you a tremendous favor. The fact that you’re still butthurt about it now indicates that you need to grow as a man and get over it.

Normal women don’t try to humiliate the men who ask them out. They are polite and will usually take your interest as a compliment, so long as you stay within some reasonable norms (more on this below).

The fact that you got a “nuclear rejection” is *your* fault. You are the one who approached a fattie, an old bitch, a feminist or an otherwise damaged woman. You should thank your lucky stars she didn’t say “yes” and rope you into a relationship. Imagine trying to deal with such a nutjob for more than five minutes, to get the idea. Women who do this are damaged and not suitable for interacting with. Period. Be very glad you got away from the headcase who humiliated you. And, quit being humiliated. There are 3.5 billion women wandering around. A few of these are nuts and will humiliate you. Man up and laugh at these bitches, and move on to the next.

Regards, Boxer

P.S. re: social norms, above: I had a friend in my late teens who used to go up to women and ask them out by trying to kiss them, grope their breasts, etc. I was actually amazed at how often women would respond positively to this, but it also often ended with him getting hit. (Such “brute force” tactics seemed to either be met with success or dismal failure). He got “nuclear rejections” but I didn’t feel too sorry for him. Occupational hazard and all that. I wouldn’t really recommend this extreme form of game, but there it is.

I make a point to not approach fatties, oldies, feminists, women who have the permascowl on their face or generally ugly women. The women I go after have to at least be pleasant looking…and most from what I can tell didn’t have a temper that went from 0 to 60 in 2 seconds. Even in blue pill land I didn’t like the idea of dating a land whale just so I could get some validation from A vagina.

I thought that was a common thing…until I saw how many men actually are with these women.

Hmm. A woman who has sex outside of marriage in exchange for resources. I feel like there is another word for that in English…

I see what you did there…

As for nuclear rejections, any woman who drops one on me is getting full-scale retaliation. I’ve been told I have a talent for character assassination, and I don’t want to waste the talents that the Lord gave me.

I thought that was a common thing…until I saw how many men actually are with these women.

It’s astonishing to me too. It’s also not lost on me that it’s almost always a White or Black brother who is towing some fattie’s groceries, and all too often my brother will not be fat himself. He’ll be looking pretty fit, pushing the stroller and lugging the shopping bags, a few steps behind his 200 kilo female “master”, while she loudly blathers her drama into her telephone, ignoring her servant.

You brothers should quit giving your committment away to these monstrous beasts. Take a cue from our Asian brothers, who I *never* see in such an unenviable position. It is not a mystery, in context, why Asian chicks tend to keep much more fit than the other types.

Nuclear rejection = nuclear ego.
That’s someone who believes that what they have is so valuable, so worthy, so much better than you that they are insulted & enraged that someone they deem beneath them would even dare to approach.
*Schwarzenegger voice from Predator* No deal.

I make a point to have the first get together be a cheap as possible. Get some drinks or a walk in the park. Total cost should be no more than 10 bucks. Second date is usually something fun like bowling or pool…usually doesn’t cost more than 20-25 bucks. Third date might be a dinner…but not at a fancy resturant….I’d prefer someplace interesting that has good burgers or steaks.
There is no woman worth an expensive get together in the first three dates.

If she is there for a free ride…I don’t see her again. If she wants to actually take the thing somewhere…I will.

Or is it also when :
a) The women just fails to show up for the date, with no call before or after the flake, leaving the man waiting and wondering if she would show up. This happened to me once in my life.
b) The women ends the date in under an hour, but not rudely, and happily having the man incur the cost of her drink.

I had both of those scenerios happen to me too…but I never considered those nuclear.

a) It just freed up my evening to do other things and I never called her back.
b) It wasn’t that expensive of a drink…and all I had was water. Down 4 bucks, a half hour or my life, and got all the info I needed.

a) The women just fails to show up for the date, with no call before or after the flake, leaving the man waiting and wondering if she would show up. This happened to me once in my life.

That’s called “flaking” by my peers. It’s rude, but it shouldn’t ruin your day. By doing this, the woman is revealing a personal defect which makes her unsuitable.

Always having backup plans for your evening is a tip given at Roissy/Heartiste, which I think is wise. Most of the flakes I’ve dealt with have been very young (20-21) year old women who aren’t really serious people.

b) The women ends the date in under an hour, but not rudely, and happily having the man incur the cost of her drink.

You should never buy a woman anything until she’s dropped a lot of indicators that she’s interested. Buying her something immediately puts you in a supplicating position. Even if the cost is trivial, don’t buy. Make her pay her own way.

That aside, that isn’t terrible. I’ve been known to wander off while a woman is speaking to me, if the vibe isn’t right or if she isn’t someone I think I’d be interested in spending time with. Most of the women I do this to, think it’s rude, but I think it’s an efficient way to maximize my energy. My time is valuable.

As in the previous case, be grateful that an inferior specimen disqualified herself before you invested more time into her.

Do the following two examples count as nuclear?

When I think of nuclear rejections, I imagine a woman laughing at her suitor or becoming violent. I have only heard of those scenarios in the context of men approaching fatties or nutcases, or in the context of dudes who are way out of line, like my buddy, the groper (being charitable, he was 17 at the time, and I thought it was funny — but I don’t blame the girls who threw shit on him).

You should never buy a woman anything until she’s dropped a lot of indicators that she’s interested. Buying her something immediately puts you in a supplicating position. Even if the cost is trivial, don’t buy. Make her pay her own way.

I have wondered about this. I agree wholeheartedly in theory, but the execution seems iffy (if meeting a woman from a website like match.com, where the date is the first time you are meeting in person).

By inviting her out for drinks, you are effectively on the hook for the drink. If she seems disinterested early on, you can’t really bail on the cost.

It is very easy to avoid paying for dinner until sex has occurred, but the cost of the first drink seems to be unavoidable from a website meetup.

Of course, a daytime approach will indicate interest up front, and the meeting is effectively date 1.5 or 2, so that is a different matter.

That’s someone who believes that what they have is so valuable, so worthy, so much better than you that they are insulted & enraged that someone they deem beneath them would even dare to approach.

or criticize them, or call them on their behavior, or turn your back on them.

Boxer: My experience took place before the manosphere opened my eyes, and I made just about every “beta” mistake in the book trying to ‘fix’ the problem. While I’m past that, I still have to live with the consequences of what happened in the form of flashbacks and the like.

To clarify, I think you are referring to an interaction in bar (where I agree, a man should not buy her any drinks until later). I am referring to a formal date, where I don’t see how the man can avoid expense if he invited her out for drinks, but she decides early that she is rejecting him.

Then I’d be in place at 16h45, with coffee or club soda already in hand, and when she walked in I’d let her get her own. If she liked me, she could foot the sub-five-dollar cup of whatever. If not, she could blow herself right out the door, while I chat up the cute barista, because she was just coming for a freebie anyway, and I’m not a charitable institutiont.

I am referring to a formal date, where I don’t see how the man can avoid expense if he invited her out for drinks, but she decides early that she is rejecting him.

OK, I think I know where you’re coming from. You’re talking about dating sites, but then talking about a serious “formal” date. I think that’s where I have a problem.

I don’t want to knock the dating web pages, as I think they’re a great place to lose some of one’s original shyness and start experimenting, but I don’t think you’re going to meet much in the way of relationship material on there.

Buried in Athol Kay’s material is a lot of good material on day game, which is less crass than the usual stuff. Roosh and Heartiste both cover meeting women in casual, everyday encounters, though theirs is based on getting women to have sex with you, a bit of modification can make it work for meeting nice Christian girls who may be fit for marriage.

Even places like Christian Mingle and J Date and other religious sites seem to be full of women who merely want to ride the carousel (under cover of being nice protestant/catholic/jewish girls — total hypocrisy).

Women who use online dating are almost always non-serious people and sluts. If you practice approaching the women you meet in every day life, you’ll find yourself with a much better pool of people to choose from.

I am referring to a formal date, where I don’t see how the man can avoid expense if he invited her out for drinks, but she decides early that she is rejecting him.</blockquote

OK, I think I know where you’re coming from. You’re talking about dating sites, but then talking about a serious “formal” date. I think that’s where I have a problem.

I don’t want to knock the dating web pages, as I think they’re a great place to lose some of one’s original shyness and start experimenting, but I don’t think you’re going to meet much in the way of relationship material on there.

Buried in Athol Kay’s material is a lot of good material on day game, which is less crass than the usual stuff. Roosh and Heartiste both cover meeting women in casual, everyday encounters, though theirs is based on getting women to have sex with you, a bit of modification can make it work for meeting nice Christian girls who may be fit for marriage.

Even places like Christian Mingle and J Date and other religious sites seem to be full of women who merely want to ride the carousel (under cover of being nice protestant/catholic/jewish girls — total hypocrisy).

Women who use online dating are almost always non-serious people and sluts. If you practice approaching the women you meet in every day life, you’ll find yourself with a much better pool of people to choose from.

I am referring to a formal date, where I don’t see how the man can avoid expense if he invited her out for drinks, but she decides early that she is rejecting him.

OK, I think I know where you’re coming from. You’re talking about dating sites, but then talking about a serious “formal” date. I think that’s where I have a problem.

I don’t want to knock the dating web pages, as I think they’re a great place to lose some of one’s original shyness and start experimenting, but I don’t think you’re going to meet much in the way of relationship material on there.

Buried in Athol Kay’s material is a lot of good material on day game, which is less crass than the usual stuff. Roosh and Heartiste both cover meeting women in casual, everyday encounters, though theirs is based on getting women to have sex with you, a bit of modification can make it work for meeting nice Christian girls who may be fit for marriage.

Even places like Christian Mingle and J Date and other religious sites seem to be full of women who merely want to ride the carousel (under cover of being nice protestant/catholic/jewish girls — total hypocrisy).

Women who use online dating are almost always non-serious people and sluts. If you practice approaching the women you meet in every day life, you’ll find yourself with a much better pool of people to choose from.

A nuclear rejection is one that’s far out of proportion with respect to the action that “triggers” it.

Some examples of a nuclear reaction would be a man asks a woman out and she mocks him, , questions his sexuality, tells her girlfriends all kinds of bad things, etc.

Getting stood up for a date, a woman leaving after an hour is not “nuclear”.

Also, I wouldn’t consider boxer’s “dude’s way out of line” example to be nuclear because the guy’s action was nuclear grade inappropriate and he only got part of what he should’ve gotten – namely charged with sexual assault.

There is the Toronto woman, but those who aren’t need to avoid the standard female indirection, keep the man guessing. If she is after a husband and family, and wants to be courted with the goal of marriage (which is Not “dating”) instead of supported, SHE needs to “Tell him about it!” (cue Billy Joel). Otherwise the Man is likely to find some woman who is candid about her desires.

She should also dress modestly but attractively and otherwise convey “wife and mother” and not slut looking for sugar daddy or nucleus looking for a beta (particle) orbiter.

I don’t use the dating web pages. I did, briefly, years ago, but I found that I could meet much better women in the supermarket/bookstore/laundromat.

Daygame is best, but I have, in the past, used Match.com with great success as well. The main reason I used Match.com was for specifically selecting Russian, Colombian, and Brazilian women, which would not be as efficient outside of such a searchable tool.

Then I’d be in place at 16h45, with coffee or club soda already in hand, and when she walked in I’d let her get her own.

OK, good advice. That gets me out of the 1-drink mandatory sunk cost.

because she was just coming for a freebie anyway, and I’m not a charitable institutiont.

My philosophy exactly. I don’t want to waste even $10 on such a woman. Ideally $0.

I just want to minimize the cost of the first date (not that I can’t afford it – I just hate to see total wastage of the drink cost). My second or third date is usually dinner at my place, which, if she agrees, is pretty much a close.

Women who use online dating are almost always non-serious people and sluts.

Oh, sluts are just fine for my purposes. Especially foreign sluts, as described above….

I have never personally met a woman that wanted to get married that was being subtle about it. They talk about it all the time, they push the conversation toward it, they ask me questions about my feelings toward marriage. So I’m not even familiar with any female response outside of those. They seem to be trying to screen quickly to eliminate non-viable prospects.

1. Be nice to men.
2. Learn how to cook, clean, and take care of a house.
3. Make your man a sammich.
4. Become competent in the fine art of giving head.
5. Stop sleeping around and save it for the man you’ll marry.
6. Hope to God that a man is willing to wife you up.
7. When he does, make him a sammich and then sex him up good.

The section on courting for sex is actually quite brilliant. It’s what more than a few women are doing right now.

Women who are courting for sex should be honest that that’s what they want. Women who aren’t looking for marriage, but instead for fun, should be honest and up front about this. After all, the players offering up good times and hot alpha attention will also be honest and up front that commitment and marriage are not now and never will be on the table. Those players will also be up front that sex will be expected, and that right soon. So, if you ladies want to keep that alpha attention, you will have to offer up the booty PDQ. No booty, no goodies. Oh, and you ladies will be giving up the poon BEFORE the goodies, meals, drinks and entertainment will be offered up. Poon first, prime rib and au jus later (maybe).

Decide what you want, and then do/be/obtain the things that will get you what you want.

Once you decide what you are and what you want, do not complain when the consequences of who you are and what you want manifest themselves.

I have no problem with a woman marrying young to a man she’s in love with. But, she is not later allowed to complain and kvetch about her “fear of missing out” and her “you only live once” angst and sturm und drang.

I have no problem with a woman who courts for sex and sluts it up. But, she is not later allowed to complain that there are no good men to marry when the centrifugal force of the carousel flings her headlong into The Wall.

I have no problem with a woman who gets an education and a job as, say, a physician. But, she (and her father) is not later allowed to complain that there aren’t attractive men to marry; or that the so-called “Christian” men push her for sex;; or that all the attractive men don’t want her; or that her demanding work schedule leaves no time for quality dating; or that she is perceived as a ballbuster or too much hassle because of her education/training/earning power.

as opposed to a woman who has sex inside of marriage in exchange for resources,

This is not really a problem. ‘Tis the way of the natural world, as we all understand by now. He should get sex and a helper. She should get provision and protection. It’s worked okay until recently. Participation has always been optional.

or worse, promises sex inside of Marriage 2.0 and then reneges once the contract has been signed?

Now this is a problem. In a sane world, the state would (mostly) stay out of families’ personal business such that a man could deal with a rebellious wife in whatever manner was needed. In a sane world, no-fault divorce would not exist. In a sane world, women would be properly trained to do their duties and love their husbands (see Titus 2) before marriage so that such problems did not even arise. Sadly, we do not presently live in a sane world.

Decide what you want, and then do/be/obtain the things that will get you what you want.
Once you decide what you are and what you want, do not complain when the consequences of who you are and what you want manifest themselves.

I have no problem with a woman marrying young to a man she’s in love with. But, she is not later allowed to complain and kvetch about her “fear of missing out” and her “you only live once” angst and sturm und drang.

I have no problem with a woman who courts for sex and sluts it up. But, she is not later allowed to complain that there are no good men to marry when the centrifugal force of the carousel flings her headlong into The Wall.

I have no problem with a woman who gets an education and a job as, say, a physician. But, she (and her father) is not later allowed to complain that there aren’t attractive men to marry; or that the so-called “Christian” men push her for sex;; or that all the attractive men don’t want her; or that her demanding work schedule leaves no time for quality dating; or that she is perceived as a ballbuster or too much hassle because of her education/training/earning power.

Deti, Deti, Deti.
Women? Being decisive? And making linear decisions at that?
Women? Understanding the choice/consequence relationship? And taking responsibility for their lives?

C’mon bro you know that’s not how it goes!

-If she gets unhaaaapy because she missed her party years? = It’s his fault for being a bad husband.
-If her Slut Badge & Post Wall status make her unmarryable? = It’s men’s fault, because guys are jerks that are afraid of commitment.
-If she’s a career gal who wants to start her family at 40? = Men are just insecure, intimidated so easily by a strong & independent woman.

Females don’t take responsibility for their lives as a general rule; if you find one that does, she’s certainly exceptional. Christian women have to have their husbands discipline them just to teach them a little gratitude. So maybe not a strict NAWALT, but certainly MWALT.

What us menfolk have to understand is that the thing women say about us, that certain men are “projects?” ….It’s actually the other way around. You’re gonna have to teach her how to be a grownup. After she’s been broken and humbled enough to listen.

That is why traditional cultures made sure the girl’s parents and other societal leaders made these decisions for her, usually at a youngish age

This is it in a nutshell. This is where the idea of family stability begins to unravel.

If you give a girl free choice, she will spend her best years giving herself to the worst men possible. This is absolutely inarguable.
Everything begins to go downhill after that, because if and when she wants to get married, she’ll be bringing that baggage, and there you go.

Do we understand that women aren’t mature enough to build a family on their own? And now we have a generation of women hitting midlife, unmarried and childless, educated and miserable, totally shocked that their choices didn’t work out, when those results were both completely predictable and preventable?

I’ll say it again…..God said they were the weaker vessel. Every time they prove it, they’ll scurry to find a man to blame.

Women complain if the temperature isn’t right. Complaining is part of the software. She wants what she needs and wants and that seems to change daily. She should shut up and be glad for whatever the good Lord bestows to her…but that is a tale for another day.

But that doesn’t mean I have to be a beta orbiter listen to her complaining that her latest pump and dump treated her like a jerk. Or be the white knight riding in to save the queen from her series of bad decisions on the chessboard. I have more interesting things to talk about and do…and I have my own mistakes to fix.

She can make her decisions and complain about them or place the blame on all those men…my choice is to not hitch my wagon to the hag.

Deti, laudable, but … do women understand cause and effect? Not many do… it is left to us men to have to deal with the fallout from that while we’re jumping the obstacles set before us by the current culture.

Regarding first dates, I don’t mind forking out, but the cost incurred to me must be under $10; the closer to $0, the better. I can afford more, but I’ve found through experience that more never helps. If we end up spending more than that, she better pay for herself as she needs to show me she’s investing too. Heck I don’t like spending money on 2nd or 3rd dates either. Some guys will invite her home so they can cook and go for the bang. While I trust my cooking skills, I’m not entirely comfortable with letting a woman into my domain that early. Best to find something that’s both interesting and free, then don’t have to worry about spending. Can research frugal but fun date ideas on the net and see what might work for you. If a woman doesn’t like the lack of spending or she doesn’t like picking up her end of the check, she has just given you a massive insight to her sense of entitlement. Big red flag…

Nuclear rejections are rare in my experience; have only had one since I separated from the ex many years ago. I have received many other responses that translated to “no”, sure, but none of them qualified as nuclear; they qualified as something a man should shake off quickly and say “next!” So knowing that actual nukes are rare helps should help most men move forward with approaching women.

I’d like to see some discussion on what could possibly convince a 16 year old girl that has not been raised in a peaceful manner (no spanking, no indoctrination, no state propaganda) that there will be a shortage of men for her. For her.

She can be convinced that some “loser” girls will never marry. But with the attention an attractive teenager gets, how is she supposed to believe the statistics will apply to her?

Or that she even cares that the marriage should be successful. There’s always divorce and remarriage.

Nothing above will convince an attractive teenage woman, IMHO.

The above comments on how a guy should approach the first date are interesting but irrelevant. Do what you want. Spend what you want. Use Game. If she’s not into you, as soon as you’re sure, walk.

I always figured if I’m going to spend money on a date…it better be something I like. I’m not going to spend money on something she likes which I know will make me bored. That’s why I don’t mind paying for bowling, golf, pool, or some other fun activity. If she wants me to come along to some concert where I hate the singer…she’s paying for it.

I’ve heard one of the best date ideas was taking her to a gun shooting range…that might be a good third date idea after you’ve ruled out that she has teh crazy.

“One legend tells how John Hull, the Master of the Mint in Boston and a wealthy man, determined the dowry for his daughter Hannah’s marriage to Samuel Sewall. Hull is said to have set his 18-year-old daughter onto one side of the large scales in his warehouse. He piled shillings into the other side of the scale until he reached her weight in silver, and that was her dowry.”

Given the mass of modern American women (and my own lack of prejudice against women of “size”), I could very well be wooed myself by this.

Exactly how is a man supposed to serve God when he has sex with mutiple owmen who are not his wife? I’ve committed enough fornication in my life without polluting it further by suborning female homosexuality–which is a abomination in God’s eyes, despite how many “Christians” try to ignore the book of Romans.

1 Corinthians 6:16: “What? know ye not that he which is joined to a skank that’ll do a thresome is one body? for three, saith he, shall be one flesh.” [Paraphrased]

Ton says: The answer to any question starting with “how women should respond to….” is another question. Who cares?

This is the answer to the question.

It’s doubtful we can change women’s behavior by pointing out the errors of their ways. Some women are going to live their life in the wrong order come hell or high-water, and there’s nothing that can be done to help them. But, that doesn’t mean has to attach himself to their mistakes.

There came a time in my life when I realized I was ready to be married, and my dating strategy changed. If a man is dating with the goal of getting married, then he should start evaluating women along those lines, and quickly “next” any woman that doesn’t meet his criteria for a wife (including those looking for an extended courtship). Every minute you waste on a woman you aren’t going to marry is a minute lost that could have been used securing your wife. You set the framework and you should control the process.

Women are notorious for creating lists, but honestly every man needs to have a list of things he desires in a wife. Not a 382 point list, but a short prioritized list of your marriage goals and the attributes a wife would need to help you reach those goals.. Every marriage is a compromise; nobody gets everything they want in a mate, but if you are compromising on the top 2-3 items on your list then you’re not likely to be happy.

If one of your top goals is to have multiple children, then you don’t need to be wasting time with women over 30 or women who say they don’t want children (or only want a small family–which always translates into an only child).

You can take control of the courtship process by insisting it be played according to your rules and dismissing those women that won’t play it your way. Does that mean you’ll shrink your dating pool and possibly miss out on some “great” women? Yes, but so what? There are plenty of fish out there. Why waste your time on a PITA fish instead?

@ 8to12
If we combine your idea is a man’s short prioritized list of marriage AND Aaron the Just’s idea that 16 year old women are desperate for a man but have not yet learned of the carousel, then can we get parents to put their daughter’s profile online for older, established men 25-40 to marry them?

Oh the only obstacle that remains is Feminist Hater’s point that the marriage laws and popular culture promote a debased marriage with an Eat, Pray, Love ending.

Well, back to sorting through 27-32 yo women off the carousel who have gone through intensive therapy and self-knowledge and hope for twins in the first (and only) pregnancy.

Excellent article as usual. The only problem I have with it (which is a problem that tends to happen with many of your artciles targetted for women) is that your intended audience of women that would bother to read this article and take this advice, if they were already reading your work they wouldn’t need your advice. They are already “married”, have it all figured out so to speak.

Those who this advice WOULD help (that don’t normally read your material and aren’t already married) would tend to fall into two groups:

#1) Young’uns that very much want to ride the cock carrosel because… they want experience and variety in their younger years to have a point of reference later, are not ready for marriage, and are not even sure they ever want TO BE married or

#2) Women over 30 (or over 35) who read your article and say “Well then, F-CK YOU Dalrock. You basically just said that I am not marriage material, F-CK YOU!” and then they will reject everything and anything you have to say outright.

This article is about women taking responsiblity for their actions. If they are the kind that need to do this, the last thing they want to hear from you (or anyone) is for them to take responsibility for their actions. They’ve never had to in the past, they sure as hell are not going to start now.

I love this article. I’m going to forward it to some friends. Yes, I can understand that the target audience probably won’t read this article or it won’t impact them, but I found it helpful (as a woman).

I wanted to attempt to answer the questions about the 16 year old girl.
“If attractive 16 yo girls are desperate for a man…”

“a) why are they desperate?”

Combination of hormones and seeing other girls with guys. It’s the in thing to do. They also like the attention.

“b) what makes them aware of the carousel?”

I think the attention they get from multiple guys. Throw in some feminist, or woman, telling them how empowered they can be if they go through multiple men. It gives them the illusion of power. They get to choose who they will take home, when it starts and when it’s over. This is what the perceive guys doing. And of course some youthful naivete thrown in that they are capable of anything and that it’s never too late to do anything and they can have anything if they just believe.

“c) specifically, what will encourage them to marry.”

You mean at 16? If they see other girls getting married, I would guess. I had a friend in college who at 18 felt she was a bit of an old-maid because many of her friends and church members were married at 16. She married at 22 after college and was literally the last of her group to marry. They would have to be raised in an atmosphere where they see this as normal.

Now if you mean what encourages women to marry, well that’s already been spelled out. Getting older, seeing friends marry and have children, tired of working, want kids, etc.

I’d like to see some discussion on what could possibly convince a 16 year old girl that has not been raised in a peaceful manner (no spanking, no indoctrination, no state propaganda) that there will be a shortage of men for her. For her.

She can be convinced that some ‘loser’ girls will never marry. But with the attention an attractive teenager gets, how is she supposed to believe the statistics will apply to her?

Or that she even cares that the marriage should be successful. There’s always divorce and remarriage.

Nothing above will convince an attractive teenage woman, IMHO.

It has everything to do with our culture’s hypocrisy towards prostitution. There has always been a class of prostitutes in every human culture. Ours don’t charge cash, it’s dinner, a movie, attention, affirmative action jobs, etc. If a girl is unmarried, on the pill, having sex with a condom, in other words, not having children, well, there it is.

If we were more open about what these girls are, and how we treat them, some 16 year old girls would aspire to marriage instead.

Of course, plenty of men will man up and go through a wedding with a woman wearing a white dress, denigrating the custom and disrespecting women who did keep their chastity, even though everyone is sniggering behind their backs. We just play along to avoid embarrassing anyone. We don’t want these kids to have to put up with bullies calling their mom a whore, etc. If a man marries a former prostitute, and actually invites his friends and family to play along with the white dress charade, well, that just shows what kind of man he is. Women are driving this behavior, but the men are enabling it.

If she’s been fornicating she is only good for pleasure and untrustworthy.

Of course you can’t enjoy recreational sex because you’re Christians.

So there you are.

Few men want to live the celibate lifestyle, and if Christian men go on strike and not have children, well, lots of religious groups went extinct due to restrictions on sex. American Churchians won’t be the first, and they won’t be the last. I suspect that men will continue “manning up” and will come up with whatever religious exemptions are necessary.

For the women complaining about the double standard, eh, stop having sex with bad boys. Or, think of men as your gigolos, if that helps.

So, Christian men. Look around your church, notice the girls 16-20. Watch over the next few years. If they stop coming to church, or if they start “dating” a “boyfriend,” or remain unmarried in the next 5 years, you know what choice they made. The exceptions that chose a Christian celibate lifestyle are just that, exceptions.

It’s actually really simple. Stop focusing on the sex and start focusing on the reproduction. If she ain’t making babies, there it is.

Excellent article as usual. The only problem I have with it (which is a problem that tends to happen with many of your artciles targetted for women) is that your intended audience of women that would bother to read this article and take this advice, if they were already reading your work they wouldn’t need your advice. They are already “married”, have it all figured out so to speak.

Thank you. I don’t suffer under any illusions that this advice will be taken seriously by large numbers of young women. But there is value I think in thinking this sort of thing through. If nothing else, parents like SSM can use it to discuss the issue with their own daughters. One thing which is interesting is when I give advice to women the complaint tends to be twofold. The first complaint is that I’m giving “the enemy” good advice. I imagine some who read the post were a bit uncomfortable with bullet point #3 for example. The second complaint is that women won’t listen anyway. My personal favorite though was the combination of the two, which I suspect is quite common. In a past post this lead to one of my all time favorite exchanges:

“Are you angry that I’m giving women good advice, or that they won’t take it?”

– Both but especially the latter.

I should add that another reason I wrote the post is to flesh the issue out further. Just because a woman isn’t a good bet for courtship, doesn’t mean there aren’t men who would be interested in marriage. You are probably right on how many 30 something women would react to the post, but this would involve overlooking my advice that they not lose hope:

Don’t lose hope. Just because few men are willing to take you out on paid dates to get to know you, doesn’t rule out the likelihood that a significant number of men would be willing to marry you. Put another way, just because you may be a bad bet for (traditional, expensive) courtship doesn’t mean you are a bad bet for marriage. The same data which shows that women are having a harder time marrying also shows that the vast majority of women still marry, and some of them are marrying well into their 30s.

If their goal is to marry and not experience “courtship”, then this post should actually be good news. However, I suspect a significant number of those complaining are more interested in the courtship than marriage itself, or at least aren’t willing to get over their expectations of courtship in order to achieve the goal of marriage. Still, the vast majority of women are managing to get married, so even here I think the issue is one of being stubborn for a time before relenting. All I’m suggesting is to skip the counterproductive stubborn period. The reality is women know how to get serious about finding a husband, which is why once women decide they really want to marry it tends to happen in fairly short order.

#1. Change the divorce laws, family law, and child-custody laws so that a man’s Natural, Constitutional Rights cannot be violated by the State.

No-Fault-Divorce is the bedrock to the form the foundation for feminism. If you rip out No-Fault-Divorce, you rip out feminism. Feminists will never allow that to happen. Being able to welch on a marriage at any moment for any reason (or no reason) is a cardinal virtue for feminism as all feminists see when they look at men are abusers/rapists whose sole purpose in life is to labour for women to make them whole with resources, marriage or no marriage.

We will see social security end for old people in this country before No-Fault-Divorce goes away, sadly.

If their goal is to marry and not experience “courtship”, then this post should actually be good news. However, I suspect a significant number of those complaining are more interested in the courtship than marriage itself, or at least aren’t willing to get over their expectations of courtship in order to achieve the goal of marriage.

Again, excellent comment. But once again, you are making the assumption that these women want to take responsibility for something (anything) when society has told women again and again, that they needn’t. They are not going to listen to your good advice. They want the courtship, they want lots of cocks, they want marriage on their terms (when they have found that perfect man to provide them with sufficent resources) and they are not going to listen to you on how to catch a man when they can listen to yentas from Long Island, Ellen and Sherrie.

The Rules
1.Be a “Creature Unlike Any Other”
2.Don’t Talk to a Man First (and Don’t Ask Him to Dance)
3.Don’t Stare at Men or Talk Too Much
4.Don’t Meet Him Halfway or Go Dutch on a Date
5.Don’t Call Him and Rarely Return His Calls
6.Always End Phone Calls First
7.Don’t Accept a Saturday Night Date after Wednesday
8.Fill Up Your Time before the Date
9.How to Act on Dates 1, 2, and 3
10.How to Act on Dates 4 through Commitment Time
11.Always End the Date First
12.Stop Dating Him if He Doesn’t Buy You a Romantic Gift for Your Birthday or Valentine’s Day
13.Don’t See Him More than Once or Twice a Week
14.No More than Casual Kissing on the First Date
15.Don’t Rush into Sex and Other Rules for Intimacy
16.Don’t Tell Him What to Do
17.Let Him Take the Lead
18.Don’t Expect a Man to Change or Try to Change Him
19.Don’t Open Up Too Fast
20.Be Honest but Mysterious
21.Accentuate the Positive and Other Rules for Personal Ads
22.Don’t Live with a Man (or Leave Your Things in His Apartment)
23.Don’t Date a Married Man
24.Slowly Involve Him in Your Family and Other Rules for Women with Children
25.Practice, Practice, Practice! (or, Getting Good at The Rules)
26.Even if You’re Engaged or Married, You Still Need The Rules
27.Do The Rules, Even when Your Friends and Parents Think It’s Nuts
28.Be Smart and Other Rules for Dating in High School
29.Take Care of Yourself and Other Rules for Dating in College
30.Next! and Other Rules for Dealing with Rejection
31.Don’t Discuss The Rules with Your Therapist
32.Don’t Break The Rules
33.Do The Rules and You’ll Live Happily Ever After!
34.Love Only Those Who Love You
35.Be Easy to Live With

You will note, the Golden Rule is abosultely NOT part of “The Rules.” But this is what the 35+ year old cock-carrosel rider does when she is done riding cocks and wants to find a man to support her and all her bastard children. This is called NLP (neuro linguistic programming.) And when he gives her a hard time, he better not be married because she will get the cash and prizes.

Moreover, women do this because under no circumstances does it force them to take accountability. They would rather NLP a man than change their behavior. Either way, they catch the man and they don’t have to change. Your way, they have to change.

@IBB said: We will see social security end for old people in this country before No-Fault-Divorce goes away, sadly.

I agree, which is why men:

(1) Need to realize that it is better to be single/never-married than to be divorced.

(2) Develop standards for the women they would consider marrying, and not deviate from those standards.

When the rules of the game are rigged against you, it is NOT childish to take your ball and go home. Only an immature, servile person continues playing under those circumstances. It’s virtuous to refuse to participate in a game that is rigged against you.

DalrockI suspect a significant number of those complaining are more interested in the courtship than marriage itself, or at least aren’t willing to get over their expectations of courtship in order to achieve the goal of marriage.

My father once explained a couple of the then-common ways to be cheated via confidence games to me, and concluded with the age old observation: “You can’t cheat an honest man”. Every confidence game that I know of involves the illusion of something for nothing, and human nature being what it is, we are all tempted to some degree by that. Carney games offer prizes for seemingly no effort, yet the ring toss hardly ever works out. The pigeon drop relies on discreet greed.

In the modern world, with no social guardrails around women, at the peak of their SMP the world appears to be at their feet. Men will buy things for them just because…and that “something for nothing” has to be seductive, and powerful, because it sparks up brain chemistry in a manner similar to certain drugs.

30-something women who were carousel riders in their 20’s are thus chasing the illusion of something for nothing as surely as any sucker selling his Rolex at 2:00 AM in Vegas, because with just one more bankroll he can make a big score at the casino.

One way women could respond to the ongoing reaction of men: stop chasing the illusion of something for nothing. Accept that if you, as a woman, truly want to be married and not just get married, you have to be willing to do your part. Pull your weight. Be worthwhile as a partner – bring something worthwhile to the partnership, such as skills, loyalty, and a pleasant disposition.

Those women who have learned to chase the illusion of something for nothing, women who expect to be continually wooed even after marriage, women who see no reason to learn to cook tasty food, women whose idea of conversation is sarcasm and snark combined with the latest from movie fanzines, they likely are either not going to marry at all, or will marry a man whom they will come to loath in fairly short order.

Women should respond to the OP by “womaning up”, in short. Make yourselves worth being around; an asset to a man, rather than a liability.

When the rules of the game are rigged against you, it is NOT childish to take your ball and go home. Only an immature, servile person continues playing under those circumstances. It’s virtuous to refuse to participate in a game that is rigged against you.

I was telling my father in law that there are 3 young men in our IT department that are MGTOW (kinda-sorta) not because they don’t want to get married (I think they do) but because they can’t find a woman that they are interested in (that is interested in them) that doesn’t have a huge pile of Anti-Dowry. I talked about that recently on my blog. And just last week, one of them told me that when he found out about No-Fault-Divorce laws, he broke up with his girlfriend (set her free, so to speak) because… what’s the point?

So what does my 75 year old father-in-law say to all of this?

“Oh yuck. That is just… wow, talk about lonely.”

My response

“Yeah but do you blame them?”

His response

“Yeah, I do. They are going to be miserable and lonely. I don’t care that we have no-fault-divorce laws and I don’t care that women can’t handle credit cards. Your friends were born lucky by being born men and not being born women. So yeah, they have to step up (*his words for man up*) and be chivalrous, they have to do it all. They are men, stop acting like boys.”

And he wouldn’t talk about it anymore.

I call this the Tucker Carlson syndrome, when you see reality about how men and women interact with each other today, and the reality is so hurtful to your worldview, you would rather not discuss it (the way Tucker did with Dr Helen Smith’s book) then try to fix it. This is probably pretty customary for men with adult daughters whose girls were raised with feminism.

The Wiki entry on “The Rules” is illuminating. Of the two women who wrote the book, one was married and one was not at the time the book was published. Some years later, when their book on “The Rules for Marriage” was in the process of publication, the married author was in the process of divorcing her husband of 16 years. She allegedly stated “We were no longer the same people who had married”, which to my glasses-aided eyes looks a great deal like “I loved him but was no longer in love with him”, i.e. attraction had faded and neither knew how to revive it.

This isn’t quite like taking advice on how to get a baseball team to win the World Series from whoever is coaching the Chicago Cubs, but it is close. Women should take marriage advice from women who have achieved the goal, not failed at it, logically.

The Wiki entry on “The Rules” is illuminating. Of the two women who wrote the book, one was married and one was not at the time the book was published. Some years later, when their book on “The Rules for Marriage” was in the process of publication, the married author was in the process of divorcing her husband of 16 years. She allegedly stated “We were no longer the same people who had married”, which to my glasses-aided eyes looks a great deal like “I loved him but was no longer in love with him”, i.e. attraction had faded and neither knew how to revive it.

I think both Ellen and Sherrie have both divorced and remarried (one remarryied twice.) They are feminsits first. But they are successful because their NLP book succeeds in getting women married. Moreover, women who read the book do not have to admit that they are wrong about anything and get deal from a position of strength (constantly dating multiple men, constantly getting dinner dates paid for by men in courtship, never having to exert any effort into making the relationship work.) All the responsibility is on him, none on the woman. And they can catch men.

Therefore, the best way a woman can date in reaction to men lowering courting efforts is to signal that she won’t waste his time

Agreed. I don’t think I called it out this way, but it is implicit in the advice. Women need to signal that they are serious about finding a husband, and avoid drawing the process out longer than needed.

Note the following :
a) He is 75. Hence, the generation of men who think like this, is rapidly shrinking as a percentage of the population. Sure, there are many young manginas, but due to the work of the Androsphere and others, it takes *effort* to now be a mangina, rather than that being the default path of least thought that was easy to imbibe. In other words, younger men no longer have opinions that can be predicted in advance, like would have been the case of younger men 50 years ago (who are ave 70+ today).

b) Note (very important) that his demand of how men should behave, is *exactly* the same as what a leftist says when demanding that highly productive people be under an 80% tax rate. Hence, contemporary ‘social conservatives’ are just economic leftists. They want to tax people based on gender, rather than income, even though it is usually the same person being taxed (highly productive people are almost always men anyway).

Social conservatives are economic leftists. A high-income man should be taxed due to his gender, not his income, but taxed heavily with no commensurate benefit to him, all the same.

But they are successful because their NLP book succeeds in getting women married.

Says who?

The first lesson of *any* reputed Game book or website will completely negate anything in ‘The Rules’. All ‘The Rules’ does is extract money from the most clueless of Beta males. No man with an iota of Game will lose too much time or money to a woman using ‘The Rules’. Plus, NLP is far less likely to work when used by a woman on a man (he suddenly won’t see her looks as 3 points higher), than when used by a man on a woman.

I have never seen *any* intelligent book written by any woman specifically devoted to assisting men succeed with women, from a proper red-pill perspective, except one : Undercover Sex Signals by Leil Lowndes.

Social conservatives are economic leftists. A high-income man should be taxed due to his gender, not his income, but taxed heavily with no commensurate benefit to him, all the same.

I think this is a trait held by the majority of fathers of adult daughters whose daughters may have made some bad choices. Or (assume their problems are outside their control), their daughters are either not too bright, not beautiful, OR WORSE not bright and not beautiful. And (as a result) they have less in life than their fathers would have wanted for them. The natural tendencies of these fathers is to lay the blame of all their daugthers’ problems at the feet of young men that did not step up and make them whole.

In this country in this day and age, if you were born an ugly, dumb woman, your life is probably going to suck. You are probably not going to get married. You are probably not going to make that much money. You are probably not going to have the opportunity to have children in wedlock (certainly will not be able to stay home and raise them without government subsidy.) You are most likely not going to be happy. At life’s lottery, you hit a good number being born in the United States (and not anywhere else) but you aren’t given the tools you need to succeed. You struck out on all of life’s other numbers. And there isn’t much that you or I could tell these women TFH that would help their predicament.

When I was offered a dowry by the father of one of my previous GFs, he paid me a great compliment while (at the same time) insulted his daughter. Of course, this offer he made to me was NOT made in her presence because he didn’t want to offend his little girl. He didn’t want her to think he was hving to “buy me off” so to speak, even though that was exactly what he was trying to do. He failed. Now that said, when fathers do not have the financial capacity to do this, or do not face the reality of the limitations of their children, we are sometimes left with a conflict of interest when it comes time to face reality. Thus you have circumstances where the natural tendency of the father is to BECOME a “mangina” because….. he has skin in the game (a daughter he loves more than life itself.)

I have skin in the game TFH. I have a daughter. In that sense alone, MGTOW is EVIL to me. I understand it, but I hate it. I see MGTOW as an attractive, seductive alternative to going with the system, the Dark Side of the Force. (Why fight it, when you can just opt out?) If more and more men continue to “opt out” and would rather work all day, go home, and masturbate to free on-line porn than date, court, and risk divorce and financal ruin by marring a woman (and sharing their resources) then fatehrs’ with daughters are going to get very angry at MGTOW. I know that I will (eventually.) I’m not there yet.

Always try to undersand the ROOT. Get to the ROOT. You did a great job identifyign something that was correct, but I don’t think you got to the ROOT. There is a bias in life for almost everything and everyone is trying to game the system for all that they can. And once a father has a daughter, everything changes.

In that sense alone, MGTOW is EVIL to me. I understand it, but I hate it.

I dare say that a young girl who is conditioned to follow the advice given on this blog and ones like it, does not have to worry about MGTOW.

There are still many men who want to marry, including MGTOWs. The problem is, it is too much trouble to find the small minority of women who have followed this advice (who, by definition, would be taken by age 22 or so).

But you can certainly condition your daughter to follow this advice. She will still land a husband in such a case.

The first lesson of *any* reputed Game book or website will completely negate anything in ‘The Rules’. All ‘The Rules’ does is extract money from the most clueless of Beta males. No man with an iota of Game will lose too much time or money to a woman using ‘The Rules’. Plus, NLP is far less likely to work when used by a woman on a man (he suddenly won’t see her looks as 3 points higher), than when used by a man on a woman.

The only reason why women do “The Rules” is because it works. It works for them. They can NLP submissive beta males into marrying them against what would be their own wishes or common sense. That is “The Rules.” Women are not patient. If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t keep doing it.

When you are 35 year old woman and divorced with 2 kids at home and you live in a sustained, negative income cash flow situation, you don’t have many choices in life. Marriage to a beta male is the quickest way to right the ship. Of course, no beta male in his right mind would want to make her whole. So she must NLP him into thinking that SHE is the treasure by making her self pretty while never calling him (make him think she has dozens of other callers) and never paying on a date (she is the princess he must WOO with cash and prizes.) It can be no other way TFH. And under no circumstances TFH, do you ever let him know that you are doing “The Rules” on him.

The only reason why women do “The Rules” is because it works. It works for them.

Only in the most extremely cases of ‘it is time for the Beta Bucks side of the equation, after my Alpha f***s’.

You are greatly underestimating how even the most minimal amount of Game completely obliterates the effectiveness of ‘The Rules’ on the man in question. Game vs. ‘The Rules’ is like a blowtorch through butter.

A woman can only get the type of man, using ‘The Rules’, that she would have utter contempt for anyway. The sort that would spend $300 on ‘courting’ a 5, while giving her a ride to the home of the PUA she will spend the night with.

Also, you are greatly overestimating the ability of women to execute something like this with the necessary detachment.

In fact, given the Solipism of the female mind, a man using ‘The Rules’ on a woman, will get further than a woman using it on a man. Matt Forney wrote about this extensively.

I dare say that a young girl who is conditioned to follow the advice given on this blog and ones like it, does not have to worry about MGTOW.

You don’t have a daughter do you? Ask SSM she’ll tell you the same thing I’m telling you, it doesn’t work that way. Yes we as parents can do all that we can to try and “condition” our children to act and behave a certain way (have certain values) but when the same girl sees images all the time of Kimmy Kardashian\Jennifer Lopez\Katy Perry having it all (and these women throwing away their marriages on way to having it all) then no matter what message a parent sends, the daughter is still going to get on that hamster wheel and start running. Afterall, they threw away their marriages when they weren’t happy and no one gives them any grief, why can’t I?

Then all I can say is that you should also have a son. By having kids of both genders, the shifting trends of the SMP and MMP even out for the parents…….. Sort of like a hedge fund manager who profits from market volatility, rather than directional betting (long or short).

You are greatly underestimating how even the most minimal amount of Game completely obliterates the effectiveness of ‘The Rules’ on the man in question. Game vs. ‘The Rules’ is like a blowtorch through butter.

Well that goes without saying.

Women doing “The Rules” and men doing “Game” could never-ever co-exist peacefully. It’s kind of like Fundamental Islam and the United States, the world is simply not big enough for the two of them. But that is because “the Rules” and “Game” are BOTH NLP. (Either he is programming her or she is programming him.) But both are programming.

Okay so keep doing “Game.” That’s fine. You will instantly cut out all the Rules Girls as they will never call you and you will never call them or if you did, you are never ever going to get from them what you want because they will be hyperfocused on getting from you what they want. In the NLP of dating and courtship, there is only a programmer and a user (the one consuming the programming), there is never two programmers.

But that is because “the Rules” and “Game” are BOTH NLP. (Either he is programming her or she is programming him.) But both are programming.

Game is to the rules what a PhD from MIT is to a 3rd grade education. A man with good Game can completely get a women who thinks she follows ‘The Rules’ to toss them aside.

You seem to think the two are of equal power. No where close…

You will instantly cut out all the Rules Girls as they will never call you and you will never call them or if you did, you are never ever going to get from them what you want because they will be hyperfocused on getting from you what they want.

It is very easy for a man with Game to completely bypass the stupid ‘Rules’. For one thing, ‘The Rules’ has no contingency plan for a man who does not act like a needy Beta.

‘The Rules’ can only extract money from men with zero Game (again, those who are accustomed to spending $300 on an average-looking woman without getting anything). A man with Game can totally make a ‘Rules’ woman swoon and forget what she has memorized.

Plus, women who use ‘The Rules’ are usually over 30 anyway, and not ranked high in the SMP themselves.

‘The Rules’ is just ‘Alpha f***s and Beta bucks’. She still has sex with the alphas at no cost to him. She just want to make sure the Beta bucks are also flowing, which is what ‘The Rules’ may enable.

er…. if you have a second, third, etc. kid, eventually, the chances of both genders being represented becomes very high.

If you have 3 kids and all three are daughters, then tough luck in terms of negating the ebbs and flows of the SMP.

Steve Forbes is a perfect example of a Republican feminist/whiteknight/mangina, since he has 5 daughters, and thus publishes a lot of feminist content of Forbes magazine, even if it is extremely unsound economically (articles crowing about the ‘pay gap’ and why 50% of CEOs are not women, despite this being a *business* publication).

Steve Forbes is a perfect example of a Republican feminist/whiteknight/mangina, since he has 5 daughters, and thus publishes a lot of feminist content of Forbes magazine, even if it is extremely unsound economically (articles crowing about the ‘pay gap’ and why 50% of CEOs are not women, despite this being a *business* publication).

Heh, maybe.

Does that make Mitt Romney the matter-anti matter opposite of Steve Forbes because he has 5 sons and no daughters? LOL! Just playing the old Devil’s Advocate.

When men are doing “Game” on their wives (or even that Soft Dread) they are infact NLP-ing them. That is what they are doing. She is allowing that to happen because she is going to “submit.” Women submit. They should be submitting to their husbands.

Women that do “The Rules” f-ck all that up, they alter the system because they have to, they don’t have a husband and they really want one. They can’t get one so they are forced to NLP a beta male into marrying them. Danny Bonaduchie (The Partrige Family) went on the record saying that his wife did “The Rules” on him and got him to marry her. She came clean after he said “I do.”

Men use “Speed Seduction” to get laid, “Game” to keep their wives in line but it is still NLP. Women use “The Rules” to catch a man because they don’t have one, still NLP. Its the same thing. I am not going to add any value judgements here as to which one works better (which one would beat the other) as these NLP techniques would by virtue of the person using them, would invalidate any other person who is also doing NLP. (It isn’t possible for a man doing “Game” on his woman for that would to simultaneously be doing “The Rules” on him. They both would have instantly eliminated the other.)

another really good post my brother. However, I can’t see that there was any necessity for this post from a manosphere point of view. Women don’t see themselves as the problem. They don’t see riding the alpha loser cock carousel for 10 or 20 years and spitting out a few pieces of womb filth as the problem. They don’t see being rabid red-haired fat tranks as the problem. Unitl they look in the mirror and see themselves as the problem, no amount of advice will be a help to them.

Taking a look at reality, how big of a scale is this really? Do we reall have tens of million of women out there lamenting men not courting them anymore? Complaining that there aren’t any good beta chump wallet providers out there? Sure you see it on online dating sites, but those are a small used up stank grease turdknocker subset of women at large. We’re going to have to decline a lot more for advice of this nature to have any proper perspective. Now me personally, I hope that decline does happen. I hope that in my lifetime there are MILLIONS of sluts lamenting the fact that they can’t find a good man after riding the alpha loser cock carousel. I just don’t know if it’s a realistic desire.

Game men using NLP on all women (even Rules women) = Alpha fu**s
Rules women using very simple NLP on zero-Game men = Beta bucks

Hence, a ‘Rules’ women is using ‘The Rules’ to extract the Beta bucks, while the Alpha fucks are being done on the side, at no cost the the alpha man. ‘The Rules’ is just to keep the Beta bucks simultaneously flowing.

I don’t care that you don’t accept that I find MGTOW to be evil. On this, I’m know I’m right. I do not have to prove myself to you. Your mind is made up, that’s it. Whether you think I’m right or wrong isn’t relevant (to me or to you.)

What IS relevant is whether or not this is harmful to society (with respect to evil.) If you don’t think that society suffers (as a whole) when men boycott marriage and go their own way, I don’t know what to tell you. It is not that an individual woman suffers (of course that is true) be it my daughter or anyone’s daughter, but a lot people suffer as that man has decided to be of no more value or purpose than a Bill Maher. You think its okay (NOT evil) for men to work hard all day, selfishly bring home ALL their resources (for themselves and their childless lifestyle) and surf free porn and masturbate their lives away and NOT date/court/marry for fear that she will execute her threatpoint and nuke the marriage with no-fault-divroce, I don’t know what to tell you. To me… (shrugging) the selfish (albeit, completely understandable nature of MGTOW given our society is so f-cked up) the Christian in me says the Devil might be playing a part here.

Our society is very individual centric. It is very seductive, very easy for men to “opt out” and go their own way. I understand it, might not even Shame any man for doing it. That doesn’t necessarily mean that by doing so, more and more men are on the Road to Perdition.

IBB said So what does my 75 year old father-in-law say to all of this?

“Oh yuck. That is just… wow, talk about lonely.”

My response

“Yeah but do you blame them?”

His response

“Yeah, I do. They are going to be miserable and lonely. I don’t care that we have no-fault-divorce laws and I don’t care that women can’t handle credit cards. Your friends were born lucky by being born men and not being born women. So yeah, they have to step up (*his words for man up*) and be chivalrous, they have to do it all. They are men, stop acting like boys.”

And he wouldn’t talk about it anymore.

This attitude is typical of your FIL’s generation (my late father was a few years older and expressed sentiments that were pretty much a carbon copy of this) and it’s even worse if they hold TradCon views. This is really a generational thing, the inability of someone not part of/long removed from the SMP to even begin to comprehend how badly things have deteriorated in both the MMP and SMP in the half a century-plus since they’ve been part of it.

Also, as I reminded Tom H in the comments to another post last week, guys in this age group having been young adults during the rise of second-wave feminism simply screams the question: Given that you saw what was coming and given that you HAD to know how badly this would end for not only you and your generational peers, but male posterity, how come you, collectively, allowed all of this to happen without any pushback whatsoever? In short, you have NO business telling me or my generation to “man up.” To your generation, I say “mop up” – you let the mess happen, YOU can start cleaning it up!

While the Bible does talk about obeying our rulers (the government), that’s a far cry from saying we should willingly participate in a broken secular system.

And make no mistake, marriage today is a secular system. Whatever religious aspects there are to marriage have long ago been subsumed to the state’s power (as can be attested to by any man who has cried “but we’re Catholic” as a judge dissolves his marriage).

From a Biblical standpoint MGTOW is not immoral.

I suppose you could say MGTOW is evil, because it works against the best interest of society. But who gets to decide if propping up marriage-2.0 is in the best interest of society or not? For all we know 100 years from now the MGTOW movement might be hailed as having saved society.

That quote was actually mine. No, I most definitely DO NOT expect the “geezer generation” (to be uncharitable and unkind about it) to mop up the mess they helped make. I merely use that as a rhetorical “bitch slap” with any man born before, say, 1946 who would DARE have the nerve to tell successive generations of men to “step/man up”[TM].

IBB, seems you think that when a man responds rationally to incentives that have moved against him, he is thinking in evil ways right there. You would take away a man’s freedom to respond.

When the true evil is not calling out those changed incentives for what they are… not just here on blogs, but also to your friends, to your daughter, to your wife, to your associates, to your parents and in-laws, etc. Not just you either, every man who sees these incentives for what they are needs to call them out in his circle. Yes you will get a lot of resistance, I certainly do, but people know where I stand, how I think, etc. More men need to do this. Especially when they GTOW. It is a toxic environment out there and I don’t blame you for being concerned about your daughter. It is still possible for her to marry and marry well, but as you believe she has no agency, it’s on you to shepherd her down that narrow path.

In short, you have NO business telling me or my generation to “man up.” To your generation, I say “mop up” – you let the mess happen, YOU can start cleaning it up!

Society (as a whole) has not yet fully vetted/triaged the damage done so that it could be “mopped up” by anyone. The common response by those who see what young men are doing (even after it is clear why men are doing it) is usually what we get from people like Tucker Carlson:

Who Cares?!?!

That was Tucker’s response to Dr Helen Smith’s book, Tucker’s response to the entire manosphere. Basically he (TradCon that he is) is saying to MGTOW, go f-ck yourselves. You want to opt out? Fine, we don’t need you, you will not be missed.

There will be no mopping up as only a tiny percentage of people have identified the problem and far too many that have, their remedy is not to worry about it.

There are a lot of reasons 16 year olds feel the urgency, in my opinion. I think part of it’s just biological. After a few (failed) relationships in my salad days, I observed they become extremely attached to the first male who makes any kind of investment in her–in stark contrast to women in their 20s who have had several romantic partners.

I remember one friend who, at 17 and 18, had an extremely strong desire to have a baby. Her ideal life would have been a honeymoon pregnancy.

Poor thing’s 26 now, in college, and in debt. Still a virgin as far as I know. But her desire to have the kind of family she wanted back then is gone, and her emotions are damaged after being toyed with by a nice Christian guy.

The only reason why women do “The Rules” is because it works. It works for them.

Perhaps. Or perhaps women tell each other that “The Rules” works, because the cousin of a friend had a co-worker who tried it and it worked for her. Groupthink is a powerful thing, and women are very prone to it. The authoresses own lives belie the power of “The Rules”, just for a start.

I can’t decide if you do not know what Neuro-Linguistic Programming is, or not. I do not see much NLP in “The Rules” as stated, so frankly I’m at a loss as to why you claim “The Rules” to be an example of NLP. This leaves aside the larger issue of NLP as another 70’s New Age scam, along with EST and $cientology, by the way.

Oh, and IBB – I thought you believed in the blank slate theory of human development, and therefore deny any and all genetic influence on human behavior (not to mention hormonal influence). Therefore your daughter, according to you, is the sum of all the “writing” that you others did on her “blank slate” – so what’s to complain about, eh?

Marriage 2.0 is most decidedly unbiblical and anti-God, and there is no obligation for any man to take part in it.

The closest thing we have to biblical marriage would be a boyfriend/girlfriend sort of situation where the girlfriend understands the boyfriend is outta there the second she cheats, becomes unsubmissive, or decides to wield the nuclear option of false D.V. charges. (Hint: don’t live together, and live far enough away any “buffer zones” won’t ruin your life.)

I’m not aware of any requirement for married couples to live together, and a wise boyfriend does not cohabit in today’s legal environment. (Staying over a few nights a week is fine.)

If you believe in polygamy, which most women do, given their willingness to be a side squeeze in an alpha harem, then maintaining multiple one-sided-exclusivity relationships is no less acceptable than the serial polyandry of Marriage 2.0.

Child support without marriage/divorce is tolerable and runs around 11%-17% of a man’s income. Not a bad deal if she decides to split.

If 16 year old women want to attach to a male (and marry), then it is interesting that their parents (one of which once was a 16 year old woman), insist that she only look at very young men 16-18 and not men 18-40, and that she should spend the next 8 years “enjoying herself”, getting one or two degrees and countless many years after that process in order to get out of debt.

It is interesting that many adults do not think teenage women would make suitable wives, nor that it is something that the young women may strongly want, nor should want.

One possibility is that parents simply do not or refuse to understand their children. Another is that parents don’t want conflict with other adults (or the other parent) about the societally approved role for their daughters.

I haven’t thought about all the implications, but it is food-for-thought.

What IS relevant is whether or not this is harmful to society (with respect to evil.) If you don’t think that society suffers (as a whole) when men boycott marriage and go their own way, I don’t know what to tell you.

Is marrying to prevent harm to secular society serving society or serving God?

It is not that an individual woman suffers (of course that is true) be it my daughter or anyone’s daughter, but a lot people suffer as that man has decided to be of no more value or purpose than a Bill Maher.

The Bible also states that marrying will prevent a man from fully serving God, because he will be concerned about his wife. How many men haven’t fulfilled their purpose in life because they buckled to societal pressure to marry? That’s one of the reasons the Bible flatly states “it’s better not to marry.”

You think its okay (NOT evil) for men to work hard all day, selfishly bring home ALL their resources (for themselves and their childless lifestyle) and surf free porn and masturbate their lives away and NOT date/court/marry for fear that she will execute her threatpoint and nuke the marriage with no-fault-divroce, I don’t know what to tell you. To me… (shrugging) the selfish (albeit, completely understandable nature of MGTOW given our society is so f-cked up) the Christian in me says the Devil might be playing a part here.

And propping up a marital system–marriage-2.0–that is at odds with the Biblical model of marriage is godly?

@IBB:
> To me… (shrugging) the selfish (albeit, completely understandable nature of MGTOW given our society is so f-cked up) the Christian in me says the Devil might be playing a part here.
You’re getting there. Now find out who started pushing feminism, TO WHICH the only counters men have are Game and MGTOW.

There are some Game methods that claim to use NLP. Not all Game does so, and in fact nonverbal Game by definition cannot be Neuro Linguistic Programming, yet nonverbal game can and will work in certain situations. I do not wish to derail the thread into a game of No True Scotsman, but words and terms have meanings.

While the Bible does talk about obeying our rulers (the government), that’s a far cry from saying we should willingly participate in a broken secular system.

And make no mistake, marriage today is a secular system. Whatever religious aspects there are to marriage have long ago been subsumed to the state’s power (as can be attested to by any man who has cried “but we’re Catholic” as a judge dissolves his marriage).

Hate to quote our President Obama, but let me be clear:

#1) Unmarried, childless man (who is not interested in marriage) works hard all day, maybe two jobs. Comes home tired from creating wealth. Goes into his bedroom, takes off all his clothes, pulls out the hand lubricant and towels, turns on the computer, surfs right to free, steaming, HD porn, and proceeds to masturbate for the next 5 hours until he falls asleep completely sexually gratified = men “opting out” of society = MGTOW = Evil = The Devil.

#2) Unmarried, childless man (who is not interested in marriage) works hard all day, maybe two jobs. Comes home tired from creating wealth. But gets right back in the car to go to Bible Study, to volunteer at th soup kitcher or men’s shelter, to coach the Pop Warner football team, or maybe heads outside to socialize with his neighbors at the block party = men “opting in” to society = Christian.

I will note, in BOTH cases above, the man is NOT a criminal. He is obeying man’s secular law. He is not physically or emotionally harming anyone (other than perhaps himself.) Only in the bottom case is his obeying God’s law and acting in a Christlike manner. I would not regard the man in paragraph #2 as a MGHOW. You can if you want, I wont.

@Dalrock: “Agreed. I don’t think I called it out this way, but it is implicit in the advice. Women need to signal that they are serious about finding a husband, and avoid drawing the process out longer than needed.”

Which brings up another issue, that any man so courted may wonder if she wants HIM or if she wants to be married. “Baby rabies” and all that.

John GaltWhich brings up another issue, that any man so courted may wonder if she wants HIM or if she wants to be married. “Baby rabies” and all that.

Some of both, in the real world, and so what? Any woman being courted likely wonders if he wants HER or just wants what’s in her panties. The animal side of humans is not always all that far below the surface. It used to be that in the course of civilizing humans, they were taught to deny their animalistic urges, not celebrate them. That was a while back, to be sure.

Women who want to be married as opposed to just get married need to signal their ability to be loyal in the long term. There are various ways to do that. Riding the carousel…is not one of them.

@ IBB.
The first example is a straw man of MGTOW. That phase is a blue-balled beta, not an MGTOW. He is in thrall to women, he just doesn’t have the skills to successfully interact with them. I’ll admit that I was that man for a few months after my divorce. But then… An MGTOW realises that he cannot win in the game – either because he lacks the time to collect the necessary resources again, like many divorced men, or because he has insufficient belief that the prize is worth winning in the first place, like many sexually unsuccessful young men. Let me assure you that in both cases, to the extent they can, they minimise their wage earning (not necessarily their ‘work’) because they can see that their OWN way is not about creating wealth for others.
The second sounds like the sort of chump who is going to be wifed up by a canny woman who can see a man who will work hard for others and doesn’t demand more from life. (Yes, best friend from college, I’m looking at you). Hey, why let those beta bux and caring urges go unused? Ether that, or you’re confusing MGTOW with closet case.

Still waiting to hear why we have to get marriage licences and sign up for divorce theft in order to be considered Christians.

If anything, it’s anti-God and sinful for a man to create a situation where a woman can commit frivolous divorce and leave his children fatherless. It is a godly man’s duty not to sign a marriage licence.

There’s quite a bit in the Bible about men not being effeminate, cowards, men being leaders, and men refusing to let women rule over them. There is, on the other hand, nothing but praise and accolades for men who choose to be unmarried (read 1 Corinthians 7 carefully). There’s certainly nothing in the Bible about how viewing pornography and masturbating is a sin.

Having extramarital sex with some church sluts is certainly less sinful than bringing children into the world who will grow up in a broken, fatherless home.

A simple test to assess a young lady’s worthiness for being a wife is how important having a ceremony is to her. If she’s willing to elope, good sign. If she requires a 3 hour photo shoot of engagement photos to put on Facebook, bad sign.

Someone I know in his early 20s secretly dated/courted a 17 year old. They got engaged two weeks before her 18th birthday and got married two weeks after.

The amount of condemnation and criticism was immense. Much harsher than he would’ve gotten for just banging her…

Your stereotypes are just that–stereotypes. They may (or may not be accurate) for any individual, but they certainly aren’t accurate for all individuals.

You are also presenting a logical fallacy–the false dilemma. There are more options for the lives of single males than the two you presented.

Lastly, none of your arguments counter this:

Yet I wish that all men were like me. However each man has his own gift from God, one of this kind, and another of that kind. But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they remain even as I am. But if they don’t have self-control, let them marry. For it’s better to marry than to burn. (1Co 7:7-9 WEB)

You can argue till you are blue in the face that remaining single is evil, but that doesn’t change what the Bible says on the matter. And the Bible bluntly states that remaining unmarried is the preferred option.

All Christians I’m aware of view watching porn and masturbation as a species of lust and therefore wrong. I’ve never heard anyone say otherwise.

As to your other point, it is interesting how even Christians will complain for acting differently than expected, more so than simply acting sinfully. My wife and I decided to get married early by heading to the courthouse on a random day, because we wanted to be married and it didn’t seem worthwhile to wait until an arbitrary wedding date. My mom was far more upset that she missed a sentimental moment than she would’ve been if we’d just moved in together before we were married.

That quote was actually mine. No, I most definitely DO NOT expect the “geezer generation” (to be uncharitable and unkind about it) to mop up the mess they helped make. I merely use that as a rhetorical “bitch slap” with any man born before, say, 1946 who would DARE have the nerve to tell successive generations of men to “step/man up”[™].

Every time I talk to my own father, I get asked “have you met any nice women yet?” This from a man that was run through the divorce meatgrinder more than once… Granted, he’s not quite as old as the people you’re likely thinking of, but close enough.

I don’t even bother to argue any more. I just tell him “I love ya pa, I gotta go” or something along those lines. If I didn’t care about him so much, I’d probably tell him “I will marry when you marry again” but he’d still not get the full gist of the subtext.

Expecting older dudes to quit white knighting is synonymous with expecting older women to quit making excuses for younger chicks. I usually tell the average bro of the comments sections to take his mom out to the nightclub and let her choose her daughter-in-law, but I know that would just be excused (by the old woman) with “not all women are like that”.

These people took for granted the morals and values that were instilled into them, and largely continue to assume that those same moral rules (which are in their cases, subconscious) are inherent to humanity. All the evidence to the contrary is just rewritten as evidence of psychopathy, rather than normativity.

I understand what you’re saying about eloping vs. huge, overblown wedding. But that decision is a little more complicated. One would be wanting family present. I imagine that’s where some of the disapproval comes in. Marriage, at least in the old days, was the merging of two families. Hard to do that when the family isn’t there and isn’t even invited. And there is some middle ground between eloping and having some huge, overly expensive wedding. The expensive weddings tend to be only for show.

There’s certainly nothing in the Bible about how viewing pornography and masturbating is a sin.

THIS is the exact same argument that the Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) use to explain why their Prophet is a “Prophet of God” getting direct Revelation from God and why there MUST be living Prophets (who have the power to change the rules so to speak) and we will NEVER get all rules in the King James Bible. Because there is nothing in the King James Bible that stipulates that pornography is sin, how are we (as Christians) supposed to know that it IS sin if Christ never spoke against it? Only their Prophet did that which is the ONLY way they KNOW it to be sin.

They are wrong are so are you. The Mormons are wrong for the same reason you are wrong, you basically admit that you lack the capacity to think or reason. Now I am going to ask you to do something that I would never ask those two, nice, well dressed, 19 year old missonaries in the nice white shirts and bicycle helmets to do: THINK. Why are you looking at porn? Why are you stroking your penis until you cum while looking at Sasha Grey/Jodi West/Jenna Jameson get buttoxed? By viewing pornography you are sinning in your heart by lusting for another woman that is not your wife. That is the ONLY reason why you view it, (no other reason.) And Christ spoke against that (as did Jimmy Carter in 1976 which almost cost him that election to Gerald Ford.) It is also the reason why wives regard their husbands that look at pornography as committing adultry, he is lusting for other women when ALL his physical desire should be directed toward her.

Your stereotypes are just that–stereotypes. They may (or may not be accurate) for any individual, but they certainly aren’t accurate for all individuals.

That’s fine. But you have a certain level of intelligence. I gave examples by thinking. Now I am asking you ALL to think. Certainly, my examples of two, hardworking, man’s law abiding, tax paying, red pill consuming single men (who have no interest in marriage 2.0 for any number of reasons) coming home and making choices, are NOT the only two ways men who do not marry could choose to spend their free time. There are any number of things men can do. He could go out and get a second job (moonlight.) Or even a third job if he loves to work and loves to make money. He could go to every local sporting event. He could write a book, start a blog, or post on a blog (like we all did.) He could go downtown near the airport and hit the asian massage parlour, buy hookers (now, kind of a criminal) or maybe just hit the strip joints?

But as far as him acting in a Christlike manner, Robert Plant said it best “…yes there are TWO paths you can go by….” That’s it. You have two choices, live a life that is Christlike (and a thinking man knows what that is) or a path that is on the Road to Perdition. Only in the latter case, do I consider that man to be a MGHOW.

@IBB “I don’t care that you don’t accept that I find MGTOW to be evil. On this, I’m know I’m right. I do not have to prove myself to you. Your mind is made up, that’s it. Whether you think I’m right or wrong isn’t relevant (to me or to you.)”

Garbage. You can’t claim moral rectitude by fiat.

My sons have no obligation to “Society” as a whole. It isn’t my job to feed my children into Moloch’s gaping maw to prop up an ungodly construction of marriage. It is too bad that your daughters will be collateral damage…but then, men our age (30-50) are the collateral damage from Marriage 2.0. Things are not going to get better until they are intolerable to women and their enablers, which is what you are.

My goodness, I saw the pingback from this post to Manboobz and had a look. The gist of Mr. Futrelle’s advice seems to be that men can avoid all these problems by simply marrying other men. Alrighty then, I guess that solves the problem. /sarcasm off

Of course I can. Because it is fiat (like the US dollar) it is only of value if you value it. I leave that up to you. If you want to send me all your fiat dollars via pay pal because you no longer value them because they are nothing more than fiat currency, I’ll let you keep the BitCoins.

My sons have no obligation to “Society” as a whole. It isn’t my job to feed my children into Moloch’s gaping maw to prop up an ungodly construction of marriage.

You are making the irrational assumption that your sons are just hapless ELOY that will undoubtledly be consumed by those same deamon “Moloch” (or the Time Machine Morlocks?) How about having one of your sons marry one of SSM’s daughters? I’m sure she’d be the biggest advocate for your boys that any mother-in-law could be. Or any of the dad’s here with daughters? Use this forum.

What I mean by that is, just because marriage now is marriage 2.0, it does not have to be that way for ALL people. If the woman’s parents hate divorce as much as you or I do (as well as it should be hated) than that option that our secular society gives her would not be an option that her family would give her. Your sons now have ALLIES in HER family. Have your sons find those girls and marry them. Now you have marraige 1.0 which is what you want for them. The rest of the world can screw.

It is too bad that your daughters will be collateral damage…but then, men our age (30-50) are the collateral damage from Marriage 2.0. Things are not going to get better until they are intolerable to women and their enablers, which is what you are.

@IBB said: But as far as him acting in a Christlike manner, Robert Plant said it best “…yes there are TWO paths you can go by….” That’s it. You have two choices, live a life that is Christlike (and a thinking man knows what that is) or a path that is on the Road to Perdition.

And the Bible says the preferred way to live your life in a Christlike manner is to not marry.

There are any number of things men can do. He could go out and get a second job (moonlight.) Or even a third job if he loves to work and loves to make money. He could go to every local sporting event. He could write a book, start a blog, or post on a blog (like we all did.) He could go downtown near the airport and hit the asian massage parlour, buy hookers (now, kind of a criminal) or maybe just hit the strip joints?

Those are also all options for a married man. But given the marriage-2.0 rules the modern married man is faced with bigger problems. The Bible says husbands and wives are not supposed to deny each other to prevent their spouse from falling to temptation. But under marriage-2.0 a wife is allowed to cutoff her husband at any time for as long as she wants (because requiring a wife to have sex with her husband is tantamount to marital rape). So the husband (who married rather than burn) is now faced with the temptation to commit adultery, because he still isn’t getting regular sex.

My goodness, I saw the pingback from this post to Manboobz and had a look. The gist of Mr. Futrelle’s advice seems to be that men can avoid all these problems by simply marrying other men. Alrighty then, I guess that solves the problem.

LOL!

I have always been convinced that David Futrelle is one of us. In the beginning, I assumed he was probably Paul Elam or WF Price in disguise; though I’ll now concede that he’s not actually either of those two fellas, as he’s been outing himself on youtube and etc.

What Futrelle is doing was known in the cold war as “black propaganda”. Think of some of the COINTELPRO operations, where the FBI set up phony “communist party” or “black power” operations, and then proceeded to sow discord in the real movements and/or make the serious activists look as flatly ridiculous as possible.

What does Futrelle actually do, really? He links to all the best androsphere sites. He behaves like a buffoon, and he suckers serious feminists into regularly appearing more ridiculous than they have previously (which is quite something, when you think about it). He even trolled Morris Dees and SPLC into giving guys like Matt Forney and Roosh a huge new audience. Hilarious!

If I ever see Futrelle, I will buy him a beer. He’s one of the best promoters of MGTOW / MRA there is. Hands down.

This exchange is how a good intentioned churchian leads the country. As said before The PUA is doing the lords work. you are a man with out faith IBB. The current culture is not in a place to play Christian nice guy any more.

Once upon a time marriage was a symbiotic relationship – each partner brought something unique to the relationship, and got something in exchange for what they provided to the other, and both benefited. Now marriage is a parasitic relationship, where one can (by-law) suck everything from the other and give nothing in return – and has the force of law, and imprisonment to force the other into compliance – and brings little of value to the relationship – the other is still expected to bring something of value to the relationship, and uphold the original contract while receiving nothing of value. The only solution to such a situation, is to not put yourself at risk – so it makes sense never to marry in any “legal” sense of the word. This is why the laws have changed…

So now, you cannot have a woman live with you, and always need to have more than one woman seeing you at any point in time, and have them all know about each other, so none can claim to have had an “expectation of a spouse-like relationship”. (As men have changed the “game” the law has changed to get around their behavior.)This is why more and more men are exploring having access to many women – at least the ones that can command the attention of more than one woman and have them agree to such arrangements. The lower-value males have to subject themselves to the vagaries of marriage and hope for the best – and that almost never ends well due to the nature of the relationship. And of course, there is an ever increasing number of low-value females who are excluded from playing in the game at all. (That is the only reason it’s in news.)

So, the only hope for women is to catch men when they are young and dumb – as they get older, they become crafty and find ways to play the game that benefits themselves. Of course, they also acquire more resources, and become more comfortable in their own skin – all of the traits that women tend to find attractive. It doesn’t take a genius to see where things are going – and the solution, but I don’t expect that to change anything. I expect continued escalation. Judging from how the law has changed in the past, I fully expect it to become illegal to have several women on the hook. But how to make that work? I suspect they will make it so that any women can sue if they are in such a situation, for some on-going access to a permanent percentage of the high-value male’s assets.

Laws are just the “will” of the voters that put Congressmen, Senators, and the President into office and women are a larger and larger block, so I expect more and more punitive actions taken against the producers in general, and males in particular. That is what I see the whole “Gay Marriage” thing as all about – setting the ground-rules for the Government to define what is “Marriage”, and start to really go after men. Gay Marriage was just a politically expedient way to establish the Government’s control of this segment of the economy. Just like ObamaCare was a way to grab 1/6 of the economy, and to force people to spend their money on what the government wants them to, and penalize them if they do not. They are already limiting what you can buy – if you don’t believe that try to buy the services of a VPN – more and more credit card companies have been told they cannot pay for such services.

Maybe they are too stupid to see what they are creating, but don’t expect everyone to be. The ground rules for tyranny are being put into place – it will be directed at men first, but everyone eventually.

@IBB “Of course I can. Because it is fiat (like the US dollar) it is only of value if you value it. I leave that up to you. If you want to send me all your fiat dollars via pay pal because you no longer value them because they are nothing more than fiat currency, I’ll let you keep the BitCoins.”

I’ll keep my money by avoiding daughters like yours and encouraging my children to do likewise. Way to completely miss the point, BTW…the point was that your “Man Up!” moral posturing is aimed at making life better for YOUR children by using other people’s children as cannon fodder. Which is as unChristian an approach as exists.

@IBB “How about having one of your sons marry one of SSM’s daughters? I’m sure she’d be the biggest advocate for your boys that any mother-in-law could be.”

The problem is that SSM’s daughters are not under her control. They make their own decisions and, frequently, peers have more influence than parents (especially after 15 years of marriage). I know multiple cases where the family was horrified by their daughter’s EPL frivorce. Ultimately, when a man marries a woman, even from the BEST of families, he’s trying to predict everything she will become for the next 50 years, with an unacceptably high penalty. MGTOW is the only rational choice, and it is a moral choice because it will lead to a restoration of what marriage is supposed to be.

@ IBB.
If you think Marriage 2.0 shouldn’t have to apply, are you willing to indemnify her future husband for any and all court-imposed expenses he incurs in the case of your daughter filing for divorce? If not, just curious, why would you let the man marry your daughter?

If I ever see Futrelle, I will buy him a beer. He’s one of the best promoters of MGTOW / MRA there is. Hands down.

On that, I agree.

The MSM knows this, which is why they will never have him on TV, and instead go for the much harder task of getting Men’s Rights bloggers on, and attempting to make them look bad.

Futrelle has spent years aggregating out-of-context quotes which are exactly what the MSM would like to present. All in the hopes of getting on TV as an ‘expert’. Yet the MSM does not invite him, for they know that will have the opposite effect of what the MSM wants.

We do that already (legally.) You want to indemnify against the possiblity of being frivorced for cash and prizes, sign the pre-nup. Blammo. Now you’ve got some power. She no longer has the “threatpoint.” There can be no frivorce for cash and prizes (just a frivorce and you get nothing), thus, no marriage 2.0. Donald Trump (s-xual heathen that he is) has never been frivorced because he protects himself (and all his assets) in all his marriages by way of legal contract. That is his “game.”

Your comments on this thread alone tell us what the solution for you is.

Not all men are MGTOWs. Many are still being conditioned to be Beta providers.

So, your plan is simple :
a) Condition your daughters to follow the advice in this article and on this blog.
b) Remove as much slutty pop culture from their lives as possible, as best you can.
c) Have your daughter marry a dutiful, honorable, beta-provider Chinese or Indian man, who has a good job as a Doctor, Investment Banker, or Executive at a High-Tech company.

What is wrong with that? If she stays chaste, doesn’t wait too long, and follows the advice here, this outcome is possible. Hell, it is still possible for Tom H’s daughters.

The women harmed by MGTOW will be those who did not follow this advice.

@ IBB.[A]re you willing to indemnify her future husband for any and all court-imposed expenses he incurs in the case of your daughter filing for divorce?

This is a very nice idea to impose upon the fathers of marriage-age women just on GPs. Unfortunately, the problem is that since most of the feral female creatures wreaking such havoc today HAVE no fathers in their lives (which largely explains their feral behavior), there wouldn’t be sufficient numbers of such fathers to make it a worthwhile exercise.

@Truth NOw that same sex marriage has been passed by parliament in the UK, some activists are trying to have polyamorous relationships recognised as marriage. If this were to happen, then surely your argument about having multiple concurrent sexual partners would fall on its face, just as the law has been extended from marriage to cover cohabitation?

I should also add that Chinese and Indian men are conditioned to give tremendous unconditional respect to their father-in-laws, i.e. you….(although your daughter will have to do the same towards his parents).

If your daughter is a 6 or higher, don’t worry about MGTOW. A highly qualified, high-earning, obedient, beta-provider Chinese or Indian man is within her reach.

IBB – from the first two googled articles for “pre-nuptual invalidated”
Huffpost and Forbes
# “Child Support Provisions – A prenuptial agreement cannot have any provisions relating to the children of the marriage, such as custody and child support.”
It’s deemed counter to public policy, and the court will pass judgement in the best interests of the child. Yeah, cos that’s worked out so well so far.
# The claim that the prenup was signed “under duress” invalidates it. So despite it being a written, signed, witnessed document, it is still possible for a court to nullify it on the grounds the petitioner was ill or under the influence of drugs. So see a psychiatrist for depression on the QT around the time of the signing and you should be alright.
# The prenup must be “conscionable”. IOW, if the court thinks it’s too lopsided, it gets tossed. These would be the same courts that see *no-fault* divorce as just fine and dandy in the first place.

No, the question still stands, especially because of the provisions regarding children, which is after all the whole point of marriage. Are YOU willing to indemnify the future husband IF your daughter files? Do you trust her that much? if not, why should another man?

[A]re you willing to indemnify her future husband for any and all court-imposed expenses he incurs in the case of your daughter filing for divorce?

Why do you think dowry existed in most cultures? It was a ‘security bond’ that pre-empted misbehavior from the woman. The concept of the bride’s father putting up a dowry is built on an excellent understanding of female psychology.

Sure, there were some abuses of it, but it prevented vastly more problems than it created.

Robert – ”If you think Marriage 2.0 shouldn’t have to apply, are you willing to indemnify her future husband for any and all court-imposed expenses he incurs in the case of your daughter filing for divorce?”

feeriker – ”This is a very nice idea to impose upon the fathers of marriage-age women just on GPs”

Sort of a retro-active dowry. Interesting. Very interesting.

It would give the daughter’s of involved fathers a leg-up on their fatherless (but, otherwise equal) peers in trying to compete for quality husbands. A guy with a good job who has become wary of marriage might be persuaded to consider it if he had some assurance of indemnity if the daughter were to blow the marriage up. Would be a counter to the de facto indemnity the woman already largely enjoy*.
*For think-in-the-box’ers (like IBB and Tom H), this might be complicated to understand, but, in todays men are already penalized if they destroy their marriages, but women seldom are – and many women believe they can actually gain by divorcing.
Note – I have two adult daughters, and one adult son. As TFH (I believe it was) suggested, having both leads me to a more balanced view of the needs of both sons and daughters in the perilous world of interpersonal relationships (unlike those other two fathers of only daughters).

I know multiple cases where the family was horrified by their daughter’s EPL frivorce.

Were they horrified enough such that they went and shunned their daughter after the fact, shunned her until she went back to her husband and begged him to forgive her? Because if they didn’t do that, I don’t think they were all that horrified. That is just rhetoric on your part John.

Ultimately, when a man marries a woman, even from the BEST of families, he’s trying to predict everything she will become for the next 50 years, with an unacceptably high penalty.

It’s very high. Extremely high. Unacceptably high? Maybe, maybe not.

MGTOW is the only rational choice, and it is a moral choice because it will lead to a restoration of what marriage is supposed to be.

Its not going to resore a damn thing. And you know why I know? Because I know math and history.

What is the ACA other than a single, male, bachelor tax? That is exactly what it is. The government went to insurance companiues and asked them how we could make insurance collectly affordable for all 300,000,000+ American citizens? The response from BCBS/Aetna/Cigna and others was, “…force young men to buy policies that they don’t need because they never go to the doctor and put in claims.” That is the way our government is FIXING the health care problem, by making this a problem only for men.

The government already fixed marriage (as far as their concerned.) They just make single men pay so many taxes they end up supporting all the bastards created during the “Life of Julia” by way of welfare and subsidized housing. Marriage was fixed by allowing women to marry government.

John, you are not going to get marriage to be what it is supposed to be by encouraging all men to boycott it until it gets fixed. This has already largely happened. It has been happening since the 1960s. All you are going to do is do to soceity what has already happened, turn marriage into an institution that is ONLY for the most educated, from the most stable while families. Have you read Coming Apart yet?

That book is both math AND history. That is why I like it. We see what has happened to marriage (pretty much since no-fault-divorce has been here) and what is happening in our country as a result. No-fault-divorce laws haven’t changed (although as your greatest ally in this, I wish they would) but instead, we just have a country that is ripped apart culturally. All 50 states have no-fault and they are not going back, not as long as the gender that lacks all moral agency is allowed to vote. You need to undo the 19th Amendment to the Constitution before you can fix marriage and get it to go back to what it is supposed to be. If you can’t do that (and you can’t, none of us can although I wish we could) your choice is “gamble” or Bite your nose off to spite your face.

I like my nose so I gambled. I love my wife. That was a huge gamble on my part and it has worked out well. That is why I encourage it.

Tell your sons to choose carefully. If she is a single mom, don’t marry that one. If she is a divorced mom, don’t marry that one. If she is widowed? Maybe. Minimize the risks from your gamble, play your percentages.

@ UK Fred. on same-sex marriage
I’d like my girlfriend to marry my mum. Due to the age difference, GF is 99% likely to be the surviving partner and get the estate after my mum dies without having to pay inheritance tax. A cause to love liberal social policy right there. Obviously, as they’ve removed the expectation of children or even compulsion for sex from marriage, there’s no legal way to gauge the extent of their affection for each other. Once people cotton on to this, I expect they’ll try and remove the spouse’s exclusion from IHT. Either that, or we’ll all be gay for tax purposes.

IBB – “I love my wife. That was a huge gamble on my part and it has worked out well. That is why I encourage it.”

Likewise, it worked out for me also – for 28 years now. But that alone does not give either of us licence to try to tell other men that they must take the same gamble we chose to – especially in light of the increasing downside for young men.

If you keep pushing young men to do stupid things (because you believe it will benefit your daughter to have young men continue to do so), you will only ever be taken to be a fool within the broader MAndrosphere.

A guy with a good job who has become wary of marriage might be persuaded to consider it if he had some assurance of indemnity if the daughter were to blow the marriage up. Would be a
counter to the de facto indemnity the woman already largely enjoy*.

Although this is, of course, a purely academic exercise (even for those women lucky enough to have fathers who are involved in their lives, most such fathers couldn’t be bothered enough to help shepherd them toward finding a suitable husband), I’d be VERY suspicious of any father who objected to the idea of vouching for his daughter as marriage material. In fact, that would almost certainly lead to an automatic “NEXT!”

you will only ever be taken to be a fool within the broader MAndrosphere.

We both know “fools.” I don’t see too many “fools” on this forum. I see men that are thinking things through, men that have had it pretty rough and have had to make some tough choices (maybe had many choices taken from them against their will.)

I don’t blame them for GTOW. I just don’t like it. I may think Bill Maher is an intelligent man who made some very good choices to protect himself, that doesn’t mean that he isn’t a f-cking sleazeball who will someday be joining the Devil in the Lake of Fire for squandering all his God given gifts.

@IBB: “Bite your nose off to spite your face.I like my nose so I gambled. I love my wife. That was a huge gamble on my part and it has worked out well. That is why I encourage it.”

You’re assuming that it is impossible to live a happy life without being married. What a sad thing to say about yourself. Further, that your marriage turned out well (so you say. For now.) is a good reason for ALL to get married is hamsterization worthy of half a dozen Julias.

Finally, yes I’ve read “Coming Apart.” What I’m starting to see is men further up the totem pole starting to shun marriage. All the cheerleading fathers of daughters cannot change this fact.

Why do you think dowry existed in most cultures? It was a ‘security bond’ that pre-empted misbehavior from the woman. The concept of the bride’s father putting up a dowry is built on an excellent understanding of female psychology.

That is the way it was when it was offered to me way back when. I had the option of part ownership in his business (outright equity given from him to me) PLUS he was going to set the two of us up in a house which I would NOT own. Essencially, it was to be “free rent for marriage” at least as long as I could keep her married to me. That was my “protection” so to speak. The house would remain in his name and then in a “Trust” for her should I have divorced her (because she was ADHD and Bi-Polar and her dad was afraid I would just go insane at some point.)

Putting the house in the trust for her and the business assets for me, we were both protected. I politely but flatteringly declined the offer.

The way I see it, marriage will start trending back THIS WAY. For those fathers who do want their daughter’s married, find a way to give their girls a financial “leg up” so that they are more marriagable (regardless of their f-cking N-count.) Don’t let your daughter pile up all the anti-dowry (student loan and credit card debt) and you might be able to marry her off, so to speak.

Sad that we are at this point in the world but this is just the Free market.

IBB
If your kids are female don’t worry about them. If you have sons teach them how to be players and cads. And teach them women are helpers for them. They wants kids show them how to use a surrogate. Show them male birth control pills. Give your sons the truth of the laws of misandry to give logic to the blue pill immersed psyche he is sure to have from all corners of the society and culture including the church. Teach him the nature of women. He needs sex find him some slut single mom to booty call or some empowered college girl getting it out of her system. Teach him the law and make sure he red pill trolls the comments.

The way I see it, marriage will start trending back THIS WAY. For those fathers who do want their daughter’s married, find a way to give their girls a financial “leg up” so that they are more marriagable (regardless of their f-cking N-count.) Don’t let your daughter pile up all the anti-dowry (student loan and credit card debt) and you might be able to marry her off, so to speak.

If both logic and the unrestrained free market (i.e., that which does not suffer from government interference in the form of politicized social engineering) were to assert themselves, then yes, maybe we would see such a practice become relatively commonplace. Unfortunately, as I look around me and dwell on my decades of living in the diseased society in which we now all tread water, I simply cannot imagine either 1) adult women allowing themselves to be constrained in their feral, hypergamous behavior, even if they are the products of caring, loving fathers, or 2) fathers, who by and large have been conditioned over the last few generations to be supplicating woman-pedestalizing manginas terrified of the FI backlash, ever agreeing in large numbers to vouch for their daughters’ suitability as wives.

In the case in your own past that you cite as an example, your ex-GF’s father was not vouching for his daughter’s suitability as a wife by offering to you what he did. Indeed, he was doing quite the opposite: he was saying with every fiber of his being that she was NOT wife material and was desperately attempting to bribe the first sucker, er, man he could find to take her off of his hands (I really hope no one after you declined was stupid enough to accept). There is a difference between a dowry and a bribe, but quite frankly, I don’t see most fathers being either economically capable of offering such or of having sufficient faith in their daughters’ character to gamble their assets on a dowry. Most just turn them loose on their 18th birthdays, no longer responsible for them, and then just sit back and just let nature take its course.

In the case in your own past that you cite as an example, your ex-GF’s father was not vouching for his daughter’s suitability as a wife by offering to you what he did. Indeed, he was doing quite the opposite: he was saying with every fiber of his being that she was NOT wife material and was desperately attempting to bribe the first sucker, er, man he could find to take her off of his hands (I really hope no one after you declined was stupid enough to accept).

That was just a weird dinner conversation. He called me up, said he needed to talk to me. I said the phone works, he said he thought dinner would be better. We met 40 minutes later and he hit me with it.

His daughter was living in Florida at the time (I was in Massachusetts) and she was ping-ponging from one player to the next. I can’t even imagine how high her N-count was but she says she didn’t love any of them. In any event, she would tell her dad that I was the ONLY MAN that ever treated her good and that she would love me forever (blah-blah-blah and whole bunch of horsesh-t) and that she wanted so badly to come back to Massachusetts but only if there was a reason to come back, so her dad took the bull by the horns and tried to get me to “man up” by offering me, cash and prizes.

I have to tell you, I was tempted. Really temped. He was going to pay for the wedding any everything, 5 figures for the ceremony. His daughter was an 8 or a 9, really beautiful girl (just liked riding the cock carrosel.) I was living at home at the time and the thought of a three-bedroom, two bath house (that I did not have to pay for, free of use) made my earning power go WAY BEYOND what I ever thought it could. I could have actually afforded to keep her at home where she wanted to be anyway. And I guess I kind of loved her. But then I kept thinking about three things that were guarantees:

#1) She was going to cheat on me eventually

#2) We had nothing to talk about as she was brain dead

#3) Basically, I putting all my chips into one hand where all the cards I am getting were determined by her father and that made me feel very vulnerable

But I did consider it. I just didn’t like that kind of a marriage. But I was flattered.

If you are a father of a daughter looking for her to get married to a decent guy…you are probably SOL. Most men with an ounce of wisdom or expirence know what marriage is like now. It’s a bad road for women now and will only get worse in the future.

Better find some young, dumb, full of cum kid while he is still in the fog.

Besides what’s worse…being taxed by the government, or betrayed by your wife when she decides to run to her other husband, Uncle Sam? One is a known f*cking…the other has to rip your heart out.

feeriker
Lets remember that only 10-20% of men are marriage (in the sense of Her Big Day) material in the eyes of women anyway. The rest, as far as they are concerned, are invisible betas to be milked either via the state or directly via serial monogamy. So it’s only that 20% leveraging their power to withhold committment at a societal level (and why wouldn’t they, it’s money for nothing) before 90% of women (bless their herd-like instincts) are demanding their entire clan chip in so they can make a bid to lock down an apex male.

he was saying with every fiber of his being that she was NOT wife material and was desperately attempting to bribe the first sucker, er, man he could find to take her off of his hands

Notice how in the old days, terminology like ‘married off‘ was used. It was accurate, and there never was (nor will be) a society that speaks of young men as needing to be married OFF.

Furthermore, isn’t the word ‘husband’ itself defined by the manager of a resource that cannot manage itself into a productive role? Why does a term like ‘animal husbandry’ exist?

If both logic and the unrestrained free market (i.e., that which does not suffer from government interference in the form of politicized social engineering) were to assert themselves, then yes, maybe we would see such a practice become relatively commonplace.

Oh, dowry did represent such a practice, and was the market price of what it took for a man to commit his entire imputed lifetime output to her. Dowry rates rose and fell like the stock market if, say, men were in shortage due to a major war in the previous 10 years.

But note that dowry rates were not lower for good-looking women vs. average looking ones, as the good-looking woman was getting a man who had a lot of options to begin with.

Now, marriage 1.0 was also not a free-market. Monogamy itself is not the outcome that humans fall into if all restrictions are lifted (see Chimpanzee and Gorilla tribes for more info).

I only have one that is 7 now. The only woman affected by a PUA or player is one that deserves it. Notice my direction to those worthy of a player single mom sluts and empowered career sluts for those that like to fuck good looking young girls that deserve to have their fertile years sexed away.
Talk like that to your daughters makes a difference. BTW don’t forget to make sure your daughters understand that there is no such thing as cheating on a girlfriend, if aren’t a wife you are just a piece of ass to warm a penis in. Say it like that too.
A 30 year old woman says there are no good men. The reply is “yes you are right there are no good men for entitled sluts like your self. Your next best bet is to just get knocked up before your eggs dry out in a couple of years.” Teach your son to talk like that to women and why it is the truth and he will most likely avoid girl problems.
IBB
You having daughters explains your frame of reference in your comments. I have two 13 and 10 so I have a little time to kill the romantic love monster.

Oh, dowry did represent such a practice, and was the market price of what it took for a man to commit his entire imputed lifetime output to her. Dowry rates rose and fell like the stock market if, say, men were in shortage due to a major war in the previous 10 years.

This is really interesting. Can you recommend a source? I’m guessing that you learned this from old, out of print books, since all the resources I’ve stumbled across paints dowry as either repressive or a form of insurance against a bad husband… etc.

Now, marriage 1.0 was also not a free-market. Monogamy itself is not the outcome that humans fall into if all restrictions are lifted (see Chimpanzee and Gorilla tribes for more info).

Jack Donovan’s *Way Of Men* has an excellent chapter devoted to this. A matriarchy (what we’re in now) is described as a “bonobo masturbation society”.

This is really interesting. Can you recommend a source? I’m guessing that you learned this from old, out of print books, since all the resources I’ve stumbled across paints dowry as either repressive or a form of insurance against a bad husband… etc.

I don’t have any reference regarding TFH’s statement, but you might be interested in Branislaw Malinowski’s Sex, Culture, and Myth. It is out of print but you can still get it used for a reasonable price on Amazon. He makes the argument that dowries have been misunderstood, and that when you look at them closer the customs are always about knitting families together.

Edit: Here are a few pages of his writings on the topic from Google Books.

I’m guessing that you learned this from old, out of print books, since all the resources I’ve stumbled across paints dowry as either repressive or a form of insurance against a bad husband… etc.

They talk about it in the Mahabharata, but it would escape the notice of readers who lack a red-pill eye. The content may not make it to most English translations either.

The Qoran, also discusses this. That is why Islamic law maintains that a woman should never be able to profit from divorce (and why their divorce rates are low). Husbands do have to power to toss out the woman with ease, yet such societies have a low divorce rate (men tend to be more responsible people, especially regarding their children’s well-being).

a form of insurance against a bad husband… etc.

But the bride’s father pays the grooms father. How can they frame that as insurance against a bad husband, when the husband’s family is the recipient who takes custody of the funds? That is the sort of convoluted feminist thinking they use to justify alimony and default mother custody.

It is surely insurance against a bad wife (the wife’s father being the payer). If the wife absconds, she forfeits the dowry.

innocentbystanderboston says:
I have skin in the game TFH. I have a daughter. In that sense alone, MGTOW is EVIL to me. I understand it, but I hate it. I see MGTOW as an attractive, seductive alternative to going with the system, the Dark Side of the Force. (Why fight it, when you can just opt out?) If more and more men continue to “opt out” and would rather work all day, go home, and masturbate to free on-line porn than date, court, and risk divorce and financial ruin by marring a woman (and sharing their resources) then fathers’ with daughters are going to get very angry at MGTOW. I know that I will (eventually.) I’m not there yet.
—
Not trying to offend you, just replying to your mindset, but speaking as an eligible, single man who gets signals of interest from women I find attractive attractive several times a week as I go about my business, which would make me average looking or perhaps a bit more, I could care less what the fathers of women think or do.

You can’t realistically legislate marriage, but if you could, men could leave the country or make themselves so repulsive to women(quit producing any income, cheat on her continually, never come home, etc…) that they’d demand divorce.

Bachelor tax? Again, leave the country for saner locations, or produce only enough to meet one’s needs. Hang out with friends, go fishing/hunting, enjoy hobbies, work and make money off the books, basically anything and everything to avoid the bachelor tax. Piss them off enough and they’ll purposely go on the dole, making you support them.

Forget about MGTOW, it’s like pushing on a string. They’ve got nothing for you to blackmail them with ( no kids to take from them by CPS ), nothing to take that they can’t replace, and they’re probably better shots than you given that they have more free time & money than a married man with a family to support to spend on masculine amusements.

And even if you could someway wrangle them into marriage, would you really want your daughter/s married to a man who wants nothing to do with the institution, or the drudgery of her being married to someone that resents being saddled with her? Not i f you love her.

innocentbystanderboston said,
I have skin in the game TFH. I have a daughter. In that sense alone, MGTOW is EVIL to me. I understand it, but I hate it. I see MGTOW as an attractive, seductive alternative to going with the system, the Dark Side of the Force. (Why fight it, when you can just opt out?) If more and more men continue to “opt out” and would rather work all day, go home, and masturbate to free on-line porn than date, court, and risk divorce and financal ruin by marring a woman (and sharing their resources) then fatehrs’ with daughters are going to get very angry at MGTOW. I know that I will (eventually.) I’m not there yet.

Sooo… basically you’re like a government that wants to send soldiers to get fight for your petty interests. And you’re upset because you see more and more soldiers are saying, “screw this, I’m going to risk 50/50 getting my life ruined for what?”

More and more us young millennials are seeing that marriage is a false contract, and particularly in the Christian sector, leads to a horrible life with a bossy wife and a weekly sermon from a mangina in a pulpit trying to win over the women by bashing evil men.

And you have the audacity and the evil to outright declare there’s something wrong with that? Why don’t you go to Saudi Arabia and marry your wife off to a muslim? Their odds of controlling the marriage will then be equal with the odds of a man in the USA having a great marriage and not getting raped in divorce court because he refused to be his the bitch for his princess wife leader.

Among other things, men who are MGTOW are not readily identified as such. You would not even find them.

Plus, I noticed that you are not interested in having your daughter marry a dutiful, upstanding, successful, well-educated, beta-provider Chinese or Indian man, even though they would meet all the criteria you seek in a son-in-law. They are the last major pool of the ‘beta bucks’ you so covet for your daughters, so you better start prepping for that.

A MTGOW you’re upset at: nothing to lose but a job, and he can probably find another pretty quickly.

An American husband who’s wife is upset: he can come home to find the locks changed, divorce papers filed, charges of domestic abuse sending him to jail, child support and alimony payments awarded, visitation rights every other weekened, his reputation destroyed among their mutual friends, the church happy to condemn him for making his wife leave him, and him knowing he will soon enough be nothing to his children, while his wife moves on, gets another lover.

Hmm, which is a more strong, appealing way to live life? With a 9mm pressed against your back, or to be walking free and clear and having no one who can wreck your life over an argument or because she “doesn’t love you anymore”?

I wish more parents would honestly, logically consider the wisdom of #1 as well as #7. Just recently, my young cousin broke up with her boyfriend after she’d returned from a five-month missions trip, the pair feeling they’d grown apart, though before she’d left, we were all expecting an engagement announcement soon. Telling me about this, my mother went off onto a (annoying) tear that my cousin (very early 20s—fresh into the decade) is “too young” to get married. Indeed, my parents were always telling me I was “too concerned about getting married” and I should “just go out, meet people, date a lot of men, and have fun”, which is not what I wanted to do—I wished to cull the out-for-sex dolts, find a Godly fella, and marry so we could have a family. Frankly, in at least one case I suspect them of meddling/chasing a very good prospect away because we were “too serious” and “moving too fast”, though God kindly redeemed that by bringing a wonderful man to me at a later date, though too late for children, thanks to some frustrating health issues. (I’ve since lost track of the young man, but hope he, too, found a spouse.)

You may indeed be fighting a very uphill battle here, one where parents, including Christian ones, need to be spoken frankly to as much as the women. Surely a lot of parents of young-enough daughters read, but I doubt there are enough of them.

Anyhow. Another very good post that I’ll probably be passing on to my single girlfriends. Thanks for the wisdom I can pass on without having to be “know-it-all married friend”, Dalrock.

>>No, I most definitely DO NOT expect the “geezer generation” (to be uncharitable and unkind about it) to mop up the mess they helped make. I merely use that as a rhetorical “bitch slap” with any man born before, say, 1946 who would DARE have the nerve to tell successive generations of men to “step/man up”[TM].

Like most MRA’s today, you have no clue at all what men born before 1946 did. I was near the right side of the distribution curve, yes. But, I spent 10,000 hours in public activism and counseling divorced men, over ten years. And, during that entire time I faced, not support and help from other men, but vicious attacks at every point such as I received a few weeks ago from a regular on this board, who tells us all he will do for the men’s movement, when, ahem, he has time.

Except for a few of us, though most men of my generation did pretty much what most of you are doing. Nothing at all, but talk talk talk. And, attack those who actually do something.

The fact the lying, cheating MSM didn’t cover what we did, does not mean it did not happen. It just means lazy young MRA’s don’t know we did anything because they are too lazy to check out the history of the men’s movement.

I know at least two men who were activists in the early 80’s when I started and recently I found they are still at it. One man came back from the Korean War and found another man sleeping in the bed in the house that he paid for. He refused to pay as ordered by a judge that after several years in jail for contempt they threw him out of jail. He is well in his 80’s, if he is still alive, and not too many years ago wrote another book. It will surprise you to hear that all these years he faced vicious attacks from do-nothings. [/sarcasm]

The only group today that is actually accomplishing anything is the MGTOW drop-outs. One at a time, with no leaders to attack, they are bringing hurt on the psychotic group of women known as American Women.

And, yet they face the same vicious attacks. In this case the claim they are not fulfilling their “moral obligation” to marry sluts and pay child support for kids living the Hell of maternal custody. A moral obligation which is clearly negated by the Bible itself.

>>If anything, it’s anti-God and sinful for a man to create a situation where a woman can commit frivolous divorce and leave his children fatherless. It is a godly man’s duty not to sign a marriage licence.

Amen. Which is why I say do not get married. And, if you do get married and your wife might be having an affair it is your duty as a father to do anything you can, including looking the other way, to avoid putting those children in the horrors of maternal custody. Best choice hands down: do not get married.

>>You want to indemnify against the possiblity of being frivorced for cash and prizes, sign the pre-nup.

Don’t be ridiculous. It is never a good idea to write about things you know nothing about. There is no state that I know of where a pre-nup is actually binding. All states give judges the right to tear up pre-nups.

That is true in the US. However, in Mexico, when a couple marries before the law they must sign binding pre-nups or reject them. And, signed they are in effect. There is no weaseling out later. The legal marriage is actually a contract signing.

An American husband who’s wife is upset: he can come home to find the locks changed, divorce papers filed, charges of domestic abuse sending him to jail, child support and alimony payments awarded, visitation rights every other weekened, his reputation destroyed among their mutual friends, the church happy to condemn him for making his wife leave him, and him knowing he will soon enough be nothing to his children, while his wife moves on, gets another lover.

Yes Archer I understand all that. Its impossible for men, all the cards are stacked against him legally. And I don’t blame men for GTOW. I understand and empathyze.

Well, what this really is, is a battle between fathers and daughters about the importance of her gina tingles.
________________________________

Father : You need to marry a boring beta male so I can have grandchildren who grow up in a stable home !!Daughter : But I don’t get gina tingles from those Chinese boys you keep telling me to marry!! They are interested in math and have no tattoos!! Bo-ring !Father : But human reproduction does not require female orgasm. Only the man has to orgasm for children to be produced, which is why all traditional cultures found it necessary to disregard female gina tingles, which the androsphere correctly identifies as superfluous.Daughter : But I am not haaaaapy with those Beta providers!!! Waaaahhhh!!!Father : But I want grandkids, and the Beta providers are the best bet for that. The Chinese and Indian beta providers are the only ‘beta bucks’ left at this point. Plus, you can always divorce them for cash and prizes later.Daughter : No!!!!! Gina tingles are non-negotiable!!! Waaahhh !!!!
________________________________

Fathers like IBB and their daughters need to sort out whether gina tingles or grandkids take precedence, and adjust the legal code to reflect their decision, before they come over here and bother us.

Since he was mentioned above, for those of you who are not familiar with him, Rob Fedders was “shoveling the gravel” from the very beginning, with men like Angry Harry and Zed.

His website, http://no-maam.blogspot.com/ , has an extraordinary wealth of information, starting with his original research in the top-center section, and continuing with a painstaking compilation of the works of others, below and in the right sidebar.

“Don’t be ridiculous. It is never a good idea to write about things you know nothing about. There is no state that I know of where a pre-nup is actually binding. All states give judges the right to tear up pre-nups.”

Well, what this really is, is a battle between fathers and daughters about the importance of her gina tingles.

These fathers spoiled their little princesses and are scared and unnerved by the idea of their daughters getting fucked by their husbands. And for whatever reason, seem to hate the idea of grandchildren.

It’s repulsive and creepy.

So, the guys aren’t bothering. Screw these fathers. They failed miserably in training up their daughters to be good wives and mothers.

Just read the comments here from WOMEN complaining that their mothers and fathers kept counseling them against marriage to good prospects when they were young.

Someone said it earlier, this older generation has some sort of suicidal mental issue. I blame TV, they spent their whole lives watching the Idiot Box. No wonder they are idiots.

I suspect a lot of these mangina fathers didn’t have the cojones to tell their daughter to “woman up” and prepare for marriage, but instead figured they would be able to snag their fantasy alpha investment banker by going along with the feminists, getting her in debt for a worthless college degree, and letting her hang around the rich men (*cough* oh yeah you’re daughter is still totally a virgin, dad *cough*) and when they pumped and dumped her, these same failure fathers are going to troll internet forums trying to shame men who don’t even know their daughters – random guys on the internet – by attacking MGTOW.

These fathers are selling damaged goods and no one wants to buy.

Too bad, so sad.

Hey dad, when you pimped your daughter out, she had the one chance to snag above her pay grade. 20 years ago, maybe even 10 years ago, that sometimes worked.

I remember IBB complaining awhile back about older men being sexual deviants for wanting younger brides. Now, all of a sudden, he gets angry at them for going their own way? What’s wrong with this picture?

I’ll tell you what is wrong with it. The daughters of these men (IBB and Tom H) were not at all interested in these older marriage minded men when they were young, no siree, these men disgusted them and didn’t give them the tingles. So.. these men grew up and lived by themselves instead. Daddy’s little cum princess finally discovers that these men are actually kinda cool and not really icky but she spent the previous ten years fucking other men to figure this out and these men, who are now older, are not interested in her. So IBB will get angry with them because they’re not doing what they’re told, they’re not sacrificing for daddy’s little princess. IBB knows that his daughters will look at their same age candidate men, who are marriage minded, and go ‘eeeeekkkkk, no way dad!’.

The real problem, however, is their daughters and deep down they know this to be true. All would have been well if daddy’s little princess had decided to marry one of these men when he was young and she was a few years younger them him.

It boils down to this. Daddy’s little princess is not willing to sacrifice herself for the future of marriage and children. And thus, she really shouldn’t be getting married in the first place. As I have always said, a woman over 24 is such a waste, she has proven she is not a woman for marriage but a career slut instead. Age 24 is the boundary, it is the cut off point. After that age, the wimmenz become a bit crazy and do many a stupid thing in search of themselves.

Obviously, there is nothing stopping a woman doing stupid things before 24, but the propensity increases because she has no one to push against. Too old for daddy’s boundaries and no husband in sight.

These comments are hard as rock. And bring a tear to greyghost’s eye. Marry that cute and sexy little girl off before she discovers slut hood and the empowered gina tingle. Remember a married women can finish college and even take classes while pregnant. Think about this one you stupid bitches out there. Thirty two year old woman with 3 kids and a bachelor degree and starting a new gig. In the meanwhile you smart bitches that at her age are struggling to find a man any man and/or seeing a fertility doctor. When the married woman is 50 and the SHTF she will have a teenage son running around with an AR-15 if she has daughter their boyfriend sand husbands will be there. While you old career hags will have your cats ,maybe one 6 year old child and the government to look out for you. Look at TomH His daughters on the surface look good. Now them ho’s should have been married at least 8 years with 2 to 3 kids each. Think of the life cycle dynamic hen they hit 47 to 52 or so with young adult children and no breaks in their career now that she is empty nesting with her husband. Instead we have a 30 plus career women that has lost the ability to love (gina tingle). That is what it looks like you dumb women. Dress it up all you want.

FH
24 is a good cut off age. younger make offer older take your gandarusa and ride that ass until she will do a threesome with one of her friends. When you get tired of her encourage her to take her single friends out so they can meet someone. Then she can meet some new dick herself. She will then empower herself with a new rider. (BTW that is a 5-6 month cycle min. of 12 mofo’s by age 30 not including 1 to 2 times a year one night stands.) “I love my daughter I’m going to encourage that over getting married”

“then fatehrs’ with daughters are going to get very angry at MGTOW. I know that I will (eventually.) I’m not there yet.”

Oh no…what will they do when they know you are angry. How will you even find them…it’s not like there is a local MGTOW meeting every week at the VFW. Some are ghosts, others hide in plain sight. Basically they have nothing to lose and you have nothing to offer.

Women decided to follow the narrative of the evil elite and started the war…and men are going to finish it.

“Its impossible for men, all the cards are stacked against him legally. And I don’t blame men for GTOW. I understand and empathyze.

“I just don’t like it.”

You don’t like MGTOW?

Consider how the MGTOWs themselves feel and think about it.

I don’t think the MGTOWs like having no female companionship, or unreliable female companionship, or female companionship interspersed with long dry spells, or paying for sex, or paying their chilimony.

But, being men, they do what they must to survive.

If you don’t like MGTOW, perhaps you and Tom H should speak to your daughters about that.

Well, IBB and Tom H, what the fuck do you expect these men to do? They can’t have women their own age because those women are ruined. They can’t have younger women because that weirds you out. They can’t be single and GTOW because you “don’t like it”.

Do you tradcons not see the problem with this? Let me spell it out for you. The SMP you knew back in the late 70s was on its last legs then. It’s gone now. That old system of assortative mating is dead and gone, and it’s not coming back.

These men have to find a new way forward. If you are not going to help them, at least get out of their way and leave them alone so they can figure it out for themselves.

Thanks for the suggestions. I just grabbed *Sex, Culture and Myth* for less than ten bucks, used.

But the bride’s father pays the grooms father. How can they frame that as insurance against a bad husband, when the husband’s family is the recipient who takes custody of the funds? That is the sort of convoluted feminist thinking they use to justify alimony and default mother custody.

Here’s a representative blurb of what I found yesterday evening at Encyclopedia Brittanica’s “History of Dowry” entry:

One of the basic functions of a dowry has been to serve as a form of protection for the wife against the very real possibility of ill treatment by her husband and his family…

It’s very confusing, in context. Why wouldn’t the bride’s family simply keep such a slush fund and invest it themselves, rather than trusting it in the hands of an abusive husband? It makes much more sense to consider it as security against the prospect of a woman who runs up all manner of bills in her husband’s name, or one who will be bearing the offspring of the mailman.

@deti said: I don’t think the MGTOWs like having no female companionship, or unreliable female companionship, or female companionship interspersed with long dry spells, or paying for sex, or paying their chilimony.

50% of marriages end in divorce.
20% of marriages become sexless marriages.

How do you think the men from the above stats feel about their situation?

When an unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places, seeking rest, and doesn’t find it. Then he says, ‘I will return into my house from which I came out,’ and when he has come back, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes, and takes with himself seven other spirits more evil than he is, and they enter in and dwell there. The last state of that man becomes worse than the first. Even so will it be also to this evil generation. (Matt 12:43-45)

If you don’t put the proper protections in place, often attempting to improve a person’s life will actually make it worse in the long run.

Marriage 2.0 doesn’t protect men from falling into either of the above two stats, and when they do they are actually worse off than if they had never married to begin with–worse off than if they had chosen to be a single MGTOW.

And those two stats are big numbers. While I’m sure there is some overlap between the two, when you add them together it becomes clear that the majority of men who marry end up worse off than if they had never married.

A man can try to reduce the odds of a bad outcome by being careful about who he marries, but that’s all he can do–reduce the odds. He has no actual protection. He has no legal protection from the state nor any religious/moral protection by the church. If anything, those two institutions are working against the husband’s interest making the situation worse.

I am not against marriage. I am against the idea that marriage is the only legitimate choice for a man, and that choosing to remain single is illegitimate (evil, childish, immature, etc…). That’s simply at odds with what the Bible teaches.

And, as someone pointed out, MGTOW is the only movement in society that is getting the powers-that-be’s attention. The only thing that is causing them to consider that there might actually be a problem with the way marriage is conducted in modern society.

Maybe I should focus more on promoting the never marry a woman over 30 meme, as it has a chance to severely disrupt the modern marriage meme if it ever catches on.

More on pre-nups in Mexico. A legal marriage consists solely of a legal signing of the marriage contracts. After lawyers do intensive documentation of properties owned or not owned by the man and woman. And, the final ceremony consists of them sitting across a table from the government marriage registrar, who reads the contract, and each person testifies under oath they sign of their own free will. In front of the witnesses, of whom two must also sign as witnesses.

There is no backing out later, nor claiming, “Goshie darn, I was so intimidated I did not know what I was doing.”

And, there are two options. Separate properties, or joint properties. Most men with properties demand separate properties. If they divorce, she gets modest support for the kids, not half of everything, if they have separate properties. Though some states raise her portion to 20% after 10 years of marriage.

This is why I recommend those who can, move to Mexico, and live there.

Let me add, not as a boast, but as a fact, that at my age I get hit on by women in their 20’s, and they are not kidding. It was shocking at first, but I finally realized they actually find me attractive. Like a different world, almost. It is the other side of hypergamy from gold-digging. The hypergamy which makes a man with assets more attractive, whereas gold-diggers don’t care if the man is attractive. They just want money. These young woman actually find me attractive. That is still amazing to me, after 7 years of it.

My guess/estimate is that at least 5% of Mexican women actually prefer older men, even my age, who bathe, are in good health and educated, and have the capacity to support a woman and her kids. And, there is no stigmatization of May December as there is in the US. “PERVERT!”

It takes a lot of nerve to pooh-pooh the worries of men who see what happens to other men, and tell them you MUST man up and marry someone. Those days are so long past they are ancient history.

In my own activism, I stated in 1985 when marital rape became universal law that it made no sense for any man to marry. That was 29 years ago, almost 2 generations.

Several men have stated they don’t like MGTOW. So, does anyone care what these men like or don’t like?

These men have to find a new way forward. If you are not going to help them, at least get out of their way and leave them alone so they can figure it out for themselves.

That’s fine.

I don’t know TomH and I don’t care about his situation. That is his business, not mine. All I can say to this is that I’m not getting in the way. I can’t imagine how you would think I would or even could. I don’t have to like it, but I’m not going to get in their way. That’s it.

I remember IBB complaining awhile back about older men being sexual deviants for wanting younger brides. Now, all of a sudden, he gets angry at them for going their own way? What’s wrong with this picture?

My dislike for 40+ year old men chasing 20+ year old women is not even remotely linked to this discussion. Please don’t try and link it. They are not related. Stop errecting strawmen.

My dislike for 40+ year old men chasing 20+ year old women is not even remotely linked to this discussion. Please don’t try and link it. They are not related. Stop errecting strawmen.

Actually, when aggregated, all your (seemingly disparate) comments form a mosaic which is distinctly at odds with the common culture of this blog and its participants. There’s a common “white knight” tone to most of your input.

Not to say that this is an inherently bad thing. We all need criticism. It is understandable, though, that so many people would suspect you are a female — and/or are only here to pull our chains and watch us dance.

Actually, when aggregated, all your (seemingly disparate) comments form a mosaic which is distinctly at odds with the common culture of this blog and its participants.

There is MUCH with the manosphere that I agree with (the majority of it.) There is some with the manosphere that I disagree with (the minority of it.) What ends up happening is that my minority criticisms are the ones that come under the most scrutiny because there are some that might think I am attacking them personally, which I am not doing. My majority agreements (end women’s suffrage, end no-fault-divorce, no women in the Marine Corps, women should get married younger, wives should always submit to their husbands, etc) are washed over and not recognized (although I wish they were.) All the critics of my comments see is that I dislike MGTOW and dislike old perverts chasing young girls.

If you are a father of a daughter looking for her to get married to a decent guy…you are probably SOL. Most men with an ounce of wisdom or expirence know what marriage is like now. It’s a bad road for women now and will only get worse in the future.

I simply don’t buy that. What we are seeing is women on the margins are starting to have trouble marrying, especially those who wait until their late 20s and early 30s to try to settle down. The flip side of large numbers of women postponing marriage is the ones who don’t wait will have more options. The old joke is applicable here; they don’t have to outrun the bear, just the other campers (and the other campers are all still asleep). Those young women who take their husband search seriously, especially if they start soon enough to pursue bullet 3 in the OP will be in an excellent position to find a husband if they are realistic about their own MMV “league”.

There is no reason for a father of a daughter to fear or resent MGTOW. Trying to coerce men into becoming husbands in marriage 2.0 for feminist daughters is taking on the role of anvil so feminists can properly hammer men. Moreover, it isn’t needed. What is being overlooked is most men still very much want to marry. Even the most vocal voice in the manosphere against marriage recently married (Minter).

Dalrockasz next twelve posts: How should men respond to women responding to men responding to women responding to men responding to women responding to men responding to women responding to men responding to women responding to men responding to women responding to men withdrawing from courtship?

GBFM answer: It doesn’t matter what women say or do, as long as the divorce laws and family law isn’t changed.

Moreover, it isn’t needed. What is being lost is most men still very much want to marry. Even the most vocal voice in the manosphere against marriage recently married (minter).

Problem I have with this is that talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. I would argue that Mark Minter is not in anyway part of the manosphere. Mark Minter married a woman who frivorced her husband, the father of her children. He made his wife whole at the expense of another man who was violated, thus rewarding her feminist behavior. Mark Minter is no member of the manosphere.

Problem I have with this is that talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.

But this is the whole point. A small number of men are choosing to go their own way. Do you disagree that the percentage of men who are truly opting out of marriage are significantly smaller than the percentage of women in their rough cohort who aren’t a good fit for marriage?

You write, “I simply don’t buy that. What we are seeing is women on the margins are starting to have trouble marrying, especially those who wait until their late 20s and early 30s to try to settle down. The flip side of large numbers of women postponing marriage is the ones who don’t wait will have more options. The old joke is applicable here; they don’t have to outrun the bear, just the other campers (and the other campers are all still asleep). Those young women who take their husband search seriously, especially if they start soon enough to pursue bullet 3 in the OP will be in an excellent position to find a husband if they are realistic about their own MMV “league”.”

Another large factor (the elephant in the room), which you seem to be ignoring, are that the current legal system–the marriage, divorce, family law, corporate atmosphere–screws men.

Men are beginning to realize this and acting upon it. Women suddenly “deciding to pursue husbands” after only a couple hookups and bit of butethxtx (maybe jst a handjob or two zlzlozzoz) will not change the Law nor legal system or schools nor churches one iota.

“Those young women who take their husband search seriously,” as you write, are the same women are doing absolutely nothing to reform the law, while displacing men from law schools, corporations, and even the church.

Jesus teaches us to first attend to spiritual matters and set the spirit straight, before pursuing material rewards.

You seem to be OK with the women living in our current cultural and spiritual cesspool without any regards to the assault on men and men’s rights, while acting in pure self interest so as to gain themselves a husband and its material comforts, without any thought for the family, morality, justice, and Higher Law.

Are you saying that women have no responsibility in these greater matters, nor reforming the law so as to alight with God’s Law, and should just secure husbands?

It is my observation and experience that it is not older men who chase younger women but younger women chasing older men. Of course older women chase me too, but they have even less likelihood of catching me and for the reasons given by Dalrock.

Only Roman Emperors used incentive to persuade men to marry – Christians provided a very acceptable manner in which men could avoid domestic bliss; and although I have no intention of marrying – at least I cannot see the circumstances under which such an even might occur – given the present legislative and social disincentives to men to enter into wedlock, it is perhaps a little harsh to disapprove of what is a rational move on the part of men. Happily, in practice as half of all Americans are women, avoiding romantic interaction with the opposite sex and thus going MgTow is difficult of achievement.

I would thus not categorise myself as MgTow (or for that matter PUA) but merely wary of female motive and behaviour. Beware Greeks baring gifts.

I don’t care who you are or why you’re here. I did want to point out, though — assuming that you are who you say you are (which isn’t implausible, at least to me) — how you’re coming across to others.

All this insolent hubris of late: telling MGTOW brothers you are mad at them, telling men who they can and can not date (it is entirely legal to date a 20+ year old woman, you realize that, yes?) casts you in a pretty bad light around here. Maybe lighten up and ease up on your fellas?

Mark Minter is no member of the manosphere.

And you consider yourself the chief rabbi of the manosphere — with the power to declare other men charam from it?

The “manosphere” isn’t a religious cult or radical party meeting. You are not the political commissar of it.

Apologies to the dalrock author for intruding into his conversation, but it’s such a perfect illustration, I couldn’t help it.

Minter did what I consider a very foolish thing. The decision was his to make, though. He “went his own way”. I’m not wishing him ill in his venture, but I wouldn’t bet money on his success.

I’ll wrap this up with a few lines of verse from an old scotsman. I dunno why. It just seems apropos.

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion:
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
An’ ev’n devotion!

Do you disagree that the percentage of men who are truly opting out of marriage are significantly smaller than the percentage of women in their rough cohort who aren’t a good fit for marriage?

No I do not disagree with that.

I just disagree that Mark Minter was ever really part of the manosphere for the reason I stated. He violated one of the cardinal principles, the bedrock from which the manosphere is built. And in doing so, rewarded feminist behavior and talught at least one woman that there are no repercussions for her infernal actions.

True…men WANT to marry. But there isn’t much incentive TO marry at least in this country. And that’s the battle most men have…wanting sex but having to eat a shit sandwich to get it.

The Minter example is what most guys would do…be all angry at women until one comes sniffing around. Most guys are one vagina away from renouncing going their own way. That’s the thing…as a man you can think clearly when no women are around, but the fog comes in when she makes her way in.

That’s what concerns me…I have all this wisdom and I could still blow it because of my sex drive.

I just disagree that Mark Minter was ever really part of the manosphere for the reason I stated. He violated one of the cardinal principles, the bedrock from which the manosphere is built. And in doing so, rewarded feminist behavior and talught at least one woman that there are no repercussions for her infernal actions.

This doesn’t make sense. You are angry with MGTOW men who avoid marriage, and angry with Minter for not avoiding marriage.

Either way, avoiding marriage (even to a divorced single mother) is not a cardinal principle or bedrock on which the manosphere is built. As I have argued before, the closest there is to a manosphere orthodoxy is acknowledging that feminism has done great damage to the social contract and social order, and responding with something other than “Man up and marry those sluts!”. Minter has neither denied the damage to the social contract nor demanded that other men man up and marry (sluts or otherwise).

Dalrock, I adore this post and your blog. I have a question for you, is there any downside to the more traditional courtship models? My husband and I have friends who have encouraged their sons and daughters to move through courtship in a very traditional way. For instance, when the young adults/teens are “courting” someone, the dates all happen with other adults around and tend to be very casual (picnics, coffee , cheap dates that center more around conversation than money spending.) Once the courtship moves into engagement, the dates become a bit more serious (and more expensive) as they both prove that they are ready to invest in their relationship for the purpose of marriage.

Their kids are much older than ours, but we’ve are thinking about advising traditional courtship for our kids too based off what we’ve seen with theirs. It seems to keep the guys from getting taken advantage of financially, and keeps the young ladies’ clothing on until marriage. Have you seen this play out at all yourself? Any thoughts/concerns/ideas would be greatly appreciated.

This doesn’t make sense. You are angry with MGTOW men who avoid marriage, and angry with Minter for not avoiding marriage.

It makes perfect sense (in my opinion.) Yes I agree Mark should be married but Mark should not have married Kate. As you said earlier, Kate is one of the women who aren’t “a good fit for marriage” (your words Dalrock and they are correct.) You get one marriage until death you do part. She welched and frivorced her husband, the father of her children. In that sense, she should not have been granted a second marriage. Mark empowered her, empowered the cardinal virtue of feminism (the right to welch on any marriage at any moment for any reason or NO reason.) Kate should be penalized (lifelong) for frivorcing #1, and Mark relieved her of her penalty.

Another large factor (the elephant in the room), which you seem to be ignoring, are that the current legal system–the marriage, divorce, family law, corporate atmosphere–screws men.

You have been following my blog for far too long not to know that this isn’t true.

You seem to be OK with the women living in our current cultural and spiritual cesspool without any regards to the assault on men and men’s rights, while acting in pure self interest so as to gain themselves a husband and its material comforts, without any thought for the family, morality, justice, and Higher Law.

Are you saying that women have no responsibility in these greater matters, nor reforming the law so as to alight with God’s Law, and should just secure husbands?

We all, men and women, are greatly limited in how much we as individuals can change the current order. However:

1) There is no reason for a woman to postpone marriage and work to change the system first. She can just as well marry first and then push to change the system.
2) A young woman’s greatest contribution would be to marry a worthy man without first becoming Bernankified (Yellenified?) and submit to and support her husband. In this role she can then teach other women as Titus 2 instructs.

Opus said: It is my observation and experience that it is not older men who chase younger women but younger women chasing older men.

I can anecdotally confirm that this is true.

A year ago I switched from a small, family owned company to a mega-corporation. I’m in my mid-50’s (although to be fair I’m told I look mid-40’s). I was shocked by the interest I was getting from younger women–early 30’s younger women. Not just simple flirting; we’re talking overt and occasionally very…well…blunt interest.

I’m a married guy; I wear a big, fat gold wedding band. It doesn’t seem to make any difference to some. IMHO, They’ve got their sights set on getting married, and if it means marrying an older guy (and breaking up his marriage along the way) they’re willing to do it.

The Minter example is what most guys would do…be all angry at women until one comes sniffing around. Most guys are one vagina away from renouncing going their own way. That’s the thing…as a man you can think clearly when no women are around, but the fog comes in when she makes her way in.

I think you’re only partly right about Minter.

Most men, in this day and age, can get vagina. My guess is that Minter could have much hotter women for sex than the single mom he married. What is she, like 35 years-old?

What most men can not get, in this day and age, is a woman who appears to be willing to build something with him. I think most of us (myself included) have a tendency to ignore the power process as a function of the libido. Alfred Adler wrote about this more extensively than Freud and Jung, but they all talked about it. Men are wired to build things, and one of the things men instinctively want to build is a family that transcends time and space, and carries his work into the future.

When a woman comes around giving me hope of being a patriarch… that is when I stop and am tempted to marry. That would be a marriage in spite of the vagina (I’d be giving up much better and far more than I’d be getting).

“That’s what concerns me…I have all this wisdom and I could still blow it because of my sex drive.”

No need to be concerned. You already know what to do. Apply what you know. Odds are very, very good that you know far more than she does, and can see more and better than she does. Have relationships with women on your terms. If her terms conflict with yours, NEXT her.

Good thoughts…Boxer. I’ve known of one man who firmly told the woman before he got married that he wanted to be the patriarch of the house…and she agreed. Get that stuff out into the open and never assume with a woman.

Perhaps I will stash that info into the locker room as my own little test for the ladies. That would be a good way to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Most men, in this day and age, can get vagina. My guess is that Minter could have much hotter women for sex than the single mom he married. What is she, like 35 years-old?

What most men can not get, in this day and age, is a woman who appears to be willing to build something with him. I think most of us (myself included) have a tendency to ignore the power process as a function of the libido.

I agree with this. (In my opinion) 8oxer is spot-on.

It was like this before my wife and I got married. Not only did we talk about kids we talked about our eventual retirement. Now THAT is “building”, not just for 5 years, but for the next 50 years. It is one of many conversations that men and women (in my opinion) need to have before they get married.

@IBB said: Kate should be penalized (lifelong) for frivorcing #1, and Mark relieved her of her penalty.

If you want to argue from a religious standpoint (Christian or otherwise) that their marriage is immoral, that would be a legitimate stance.

But sans religion you can’t make a judgement about the morality of their actions. In this regard the moral relativists have it right: without God there is no morality.

You seem to be setting up your own rules of morality as you go. That’s fine, as long as you understand that without a religious framework underpinning it–without God–your rules of morality have not more virtue than some random person’s rules of morality in China, India, or Australia.

I have a question for you, is there any downside to the more traditional courtship models? My husband and I have friends who have encouraged their sons and daughters to move through courtship in a very traditional way. For instance, when the young adults/teens are “courting” someone, the dates all happen with other adults around and tend to be very casual (picnics, coffee , cheap dates that center more around conversation than money spending.) Once the courtship moves into engagement, the dates become a bit more serious (and more expensive) as they both prove that they are ready to invest in their relationship for the purpose of marriage.

Their kids are much older than ours, but we’ve are thinking about advising traditional courtship for our kids too based off what we’ve seen with theirs. It seems to keep the guys from getting taken advantage of financially, and keeps the young ladies’ clothing on until marriage. Have you seen this play out at all yourself? Any thoughts/concerns/ideas would be greatly appreciated.

I think any model can and will have downsides. The first which comes to mind is the fact that we are having to try to recreate “traditional” from a place very foreign to tradition. I don’t know what we can do besides be aware of that, but at least we should have it in mind. The other potential downsides would be if the pool of individuals were too small to allow for good matches, or if the people involved didn’t feel fully responsible for living by the choice they made. For this latter issue I think it is very important to encourage young people to get serious as soon as possible about looking for a spouse, but to make sure they are clear that the choice on if, when, and whom to marry is ultimately up to them. Our culture will be telling the wives especially that they were duped into marriage, they married too young, etc. We should be careful to not do anything which would provide a foothold to those whispers. I also think there is a risk that a young woman will feel so eager to marry that she will decide to marry a man she doesn’t burn with passion for, creating a slew of otherwise avoidable issues.

I don’t have much exposure to the modern traditional courtship movement, but I know of a number of young people who are following the same basic path you describe. My wife has spoken with a number of young ladies who are following this path, and in doing so they are very much swimming against the current. However, they seem to really understand the problems with the hookup/boyfriend approach to marriage, and are glad they have another option.

Since dowry is paid by the bride’s family TO the groom’s family, it is clearly not an insurance against a ‘bad husband’. It is clearly insurance against the wife’s behavior. And the fact that money was transferred to the groom’s family as custodians shows which party was considered to be the most volatile and unpredictable one.

The books that say the party that receives the funds (the groom) is the same one that the funds ensure the good behavior of, is entirely illogical. Their need to whitewash everything in favor of women shows no limits.

I really have to take issue with 8to12 asserting that minus God there is no morality (Dostoyevsky put that remark into the mouth of one of his characters). Plato rather sent that idea to the wall in his Euthyphro dialogue, but even if you are unfamiliar with the Plato I would have thought that the every day action of ordinary people (not all of whom are Christians) are proof enough that morality does not rely on a belief in one or more Gods. That is not to say however that a Christian lifestyle may not be a very useful aide memoire for a morally decent life, nor am I suggesting that the average Christian is immoral – and one does not have to be a believer to see that, which is why I enjoy quoting scripture especially Paul.

Neither is it true (necessarily) for IBB to suggest that Mark Minter is not part of the Manosphere because he married Kate – what! if heresy is coming to the Manosphere I shall be distancing myself. Marriage whether to a divorced mother like Kate or (allegedly) for Price to a European feminist does not put them outside – otherwise I will be quoting verse about casting first stones. I appreciate that MM has disappointed and surprised people and I take IBBs point from Luke (not that I know the verse nor have I checked it) but are we not in danger of getting into a holier-than-thou attitude. For me, the Manosphere is simply this: a forum in cyber space where men (and the odd female) can discuss matters of mutual concern largely and principally concerned with the dangers of female pedestalising and the problems inherent in the automatic female bias in law. MRAs are a different matter and for what it is worth I hold little sympathy with the idea of Men’s Rights.

Of course if you chose to suspect that I am on a mission from Futrtelle and bite the heads off whippets and am a rape culture enthusiast who enjoys smothering babies I can hardly prevent that should you see fit to so believe.

The problem with Mark Minotaur is that he was so vocal about opposing marriage. He probably was the most vocal person in the entire androsphere, on opposing marriage (which is saying something).

Yet, as soon as a woman 24 years younger than him, even if a single mom of unknown attractiveness and questionable personality (from her comments), expressed interest in him, he could not sign the marriage contract fast enough.

That leads me to believe that the marriage strike is not for real. Many men who claim to be on strike are only ‘on strike’ until a woman actually wants to marry them. The only ones who can be taken seriously as being on strike are those who practice Game extensively.

This episode also shows us how low the SMV and MMV of a single mother is – at 34, she can only get a man who is 58 years old. 24 years older than her.

What does appear to be the case is that even when a man is destroyed by family court, his resistance to marriage only lasts 3-4 years, after which he caves and gets married again. If this is the case, women have won. The laws are clearly not unfair enough yet to deter men from marriage, or even re-marriage after a 3-4 year period of resistance.

Also, if things go south for Mark Minotaur and Kate, she can simply show the courts and divorce lawyer all of his writings, to paint him as a monster. While I don’t wish for misfortune on any newlyweds, I don’t think anyone here is going to bet real money of this marriage lasting till death does them part. Correct me if there is someone who wants to bet real money on that outcome. The sad odds are that Kate will cash in when it is expedient for her to do so.

I really have to take issue with 8to12 asserting that minus God there is no morality (Dostoyevsky put that remark into the mouth of one of his characters).

I’d say I agree with you about 90% of the time and I agree with 8-to-12 about 75% of the time but (in my opinion) 8-to-12 is entirely right on this one. I guess what it comes down to is the root of “morality.” Where did “morality” originally come from? From what I have seen it comes from either one of two different roots:

#1) God’s Law for man
#2) The belief that a woman can be ruined, her value could be reduced to zero, and what can be done to protect her value

To me, those are the only two “roots” for morality. In that sense, if you make a choice to do something or not do something, your choices might boil down to “…is what I am doing Christlike or UnChristlike?” and if your a Christian, those choices are clearly defined by God’s Law. If you choose not to be bound by God’s Law (as some men and unfortunately most women don’t) then your choices are more amoral. It is more of a distinction of “…can I do this vs can’t I?” Thus, a woman (who is not a moral agent) could choose to go to court and lie in a court of law claiming that her beta male husband abused her (when he has done nothing of the sort) simply to gain full custody of the children and maximize her cash and prizes. That is a perfectly logical, rational decision, based on the belief that women are (largely) amoral.

In a spiritual sense, I would argue that the “root” belief for morality (#1) is acting in the best interests of the “root” belief for morality (#2) thus God, in His infinate wisdom, created Law’s for man to obey, to protect women from being ruined.

When people say that without God there is no morality they don’t mean that no one who doesn’t believe in God will act in a moral way. They mean that while they may act in a moral way, they have no coherent philosophical reason for doing so.

If there is no objective external morality, which there cannot be without a higher power, then morality is subjective. If morality is subjective then you can never say “that action was wrong”. At best you can say “that action would be wrong for me to do” or “I don’t like that action” or “that action doesn’t serve the most people, i.e. is not useful”. It can only be “wrong” if an authority recognized by everyone says it’s wrong, and there is no such authority other than God.

Most people, while they may believe intellectually in relative morality, act as if it were absolute. Atheism gives a man no good reason to act morally, but most will do so anyway because their conscience knows better than their mind.

“Good thoughts…Boxer. I’ve known of one man who firmly told the woman before he got married that he wanted to be the patriarch of the house…and she agreed. Get that stuff out into the open and never assume with a woman.”

What do you do when she goes back on her word and backs it up with all the power of the state?

@Dalrock
“Minter has neither denied the damage to the social contract nor demanded that other men man up and marry (sluts or otherwise).”

Ah, this is a bit disingenuous, he hasn’t literally demanded that men man up and marry sluts, just gone ahead and led by example. He hasn’t literally denied the damage to the social contract, his words seem to acknowledge it, he just acted in a way that ignores that damage. After all his tough talk, it has become long posts white knighting for her insisting that we all “owe” her our respect because she is one of the good ones. It wasn’t enough for them to just do it and fade away, they had to make big announcements around this corner of the internet bragging about how she is NLT and apparently genuinely expecting congratulations. Like as though this is just a social scene where writing about the damage to the social contract and the dangers of marriage are just a fun little hobby, and intellectual exercise to keep us busy as we socialize on the internet.

K – I was just over at Heartsie’s writing my 10th personal anecdote of the day that has little or no bearing on the topic that I’m responding to. I’ll check around on the other sites in my social scene. Hey, look at him, he writes really good rants against marriage. People seem to respect him. I need a man in my life, the child support from the first one isn’t going to cover the new jacuzzi. Hey, um, Mark, I had some questions about what you wrote, can we talk offline?
M- Don’t marry, don’t date just pump and dump, its the only smart move. What? Oh sure, we can talk. 2 kids, divorcee? Lip service to red pill? Great! You’re interested in me? Sure, let’s talk…. I want to save you from your mistakes! Will you marry me? Let’s announce it to the whole manosphere, they’re going to be so happy for us!

It’s like Zed said, “Most MRA’s are one blow job away from becoming a feminist.”

It’s like Zed said, “Most MRA’s are one blow job away from becoming a feminist.”

Then there will never be a marriage strike..

My own take is we don’t really have a “marriage strike”. I think what we are seeing instead is young men not being incented to prepare for marriage in the numbers they were in the past. This is what I’ve termed “the missingweakened signal“. From what I found (and shared) with earnings data, there is a growing group of unmarried men who make nothing or next to nothing, and this gets worse the older the age bracket you look at. So while I don’t think men are choosing to go on strike (and I wouldn’t advise it), something more frightening for women who delay marriage seems to be happening. The problem they have isn’t that they can’t change the men’s minds, but that they can’t change the man at that late stage, at least not in the timeframe they would need to convert him into husband material. By a man’s 30s or later it gets hard to change him, at least quickly. His 20s are lost to other priorities. Compounding this is the difficulty women have in reaching younger for husbands and the change in SMV as men and women get older. Even here, if 30 something brides started snapping up eligible men in their mid to late 20s in meaningful numbers, they run the risk of the men’s peer (or younger) women getting in on the competition and freezing the older women out.

Perhaps it is different in the churches…but those weddings have been going down. Although the secular ones I see out and about are still occuring. If anything it’s still a marriage delay.

But the first way women try to get you roped into marriage…pre-marital sex. From the stories I’ve read…a lot of men stop thinking rationally and clearly after that. Heaven help you if she gets pregnant.

Keeps dropping. Steady, sustained, somewhat linear, drop. It will never get to ZERO so in that sense you are right, but it will probably keep going lower and lower until it becomes a luxury for some as opposed to something that is a standard part of our culture for all….

…actually, we are already at that point.

TMG,

And men in general, even savvy ones, will have to be very careful in the coming years as women become aware of the manosphere and figure out a new con game.

Men are “the mark.” Women have to take down “the mark” in order to have what they feel they are entitled. If men choose not to marry (as less and less do), women will find a way to get what they want through other means.

At one time, the means was public housing and welfare subsidies. That wasn’t enough, so we changed the law to give them frivorce. Apparently, that is not enough (drove the marriage rate lower) so we changed the law again to give them preferences in job hiring. That is still not enough. So today, those means are the Affordable Care Act. That gives the unmarried woman (the Sandra Fluke living the Life of Julia) what she thinks she needs. Obviously, that will not be enough, they will need more (and they will get it.)

Forsooth, gents! One of the back-rubbers and hand-holders in the comments below the 2nd. article Mr. South linked to has stumbled on a perfect solution to the inexplicable lack of quality male interest (never mind attachment).

“As for turning on the feminine energy, I will agree with this, but I don’t think it is a salve for everything else that we are bringing to the table. The answer is finding men who have done way more than you and who are more successful than you, so they are not threatened by you. Good luck out there!”

Awesome. Fear the Hamster, mortals, as the Earth resounds beneath his tread!

“Here’s a representative blurb of what I found yesterday evening at Encyclopedia Britannica’s “History of Dowry” entry: …”

Since I am the one who brought up Encyclopedia Britannica on a previous thread, I just wanted to point out that I was talking specifically about the 1911, and earlier, physical printed-back-then versions.

After it was sold to an American company, it started becoming more and more flexible through “continuous revision”, and current online entries are just another version of the MSM.

In 1947 it was 15.1 marriages per 1000 Catholics (for that year); now it’s less than 2.6.

Surprised it is even that high. I would guess below 2.0.

At most Protestant congregations (that are denominational), the percentage of people over age 65 just keeps going up and up because most young people are single and (well) wont’ go to church. Only the Evangelical/Non-Denominational parishes see any growth among their younger families (not surprisingly, the only ones that might do any preaching on Patriarichal headship.)

At most LDS/Mormon churches, they have these things call “Wards” and one of these “Wards” is called the “Single’s Ward.” It is designed in part to help singles and in part so they would marry each other and get them OUT of that Ward and into the others. At age 40 you are supposed to be “aged out” of the Single’s Ward. That “aging out” process is now so common place (because fewer marry) they might raise the age.

Dalrock said: I think what we are seeing instead is young men not being incented to prepare for marriage in the numbers they were in the past… His 20s are lost to other priorities.

At least some of this can be attributed to the prejudice against males in primary education. Boys spend 12 years (more if you include kindergarten) in an environment that prioritized girls and devalues boys (to the point that they are drugged simply for acting like boys). Unlike prior generations of boys who left high school with an “I can conquer the world” attitude, today’s boys come out thinking they are second rate humans. No wonder they aren’t going on to college or rolling up their sleeve to work their way up the corporate ladder.

Ironically, the feminized school system eradicates from males the one attribute women find the most attractive: confidence.

The powers that be berate young men for wasting their youth playing video games instead of going to college, working hard and getting themselves prepared to one day be a quality husband! What did they expect? This is what happens when you spend 12 years telling a boy he’s “defective” simply because he acts like a boy.

This is what I’ve termed “the missing weakened signal“. From what I found (and shared) with earnings data, there is a growing group of unmarried men who make nothing or next to nothing,

So men are not easily morphing into suitable husband material, and ‘beta bucks’ are not being produced to a level that the harvesters expect.

The question is, how much of this is because of government misandry, and how much by the men’s own choice?

If the former, then men are still striving to become husband material, and wiling to incur search costs. This would not be a ‘strike’, and these men would still jump at marriage when a woman is ready to settle for them. So they still will do what women want, when they want. They just don’t make as much as women would like to spend.

If the latter, then that means men are not willing to incur search costs, and have instead chosen a life of leisure. That would be more of a ‘strike’…

The powers that be berate young men for wasting their youth playing video games instead of going to college, working hard and getting themselves prepared to one day be a quality husband! What did they expect? This is what happens when you spend 12 years telling a boy he’s “defective” simply because he acts like a boy.

Fiend that I am for data, I would be curious as to what percentage of these young men wasting their youth playing video games in the basement of their parents home, started doing so prior to the August 2008 housing crisis (when the unemployment rate starting trending way up)? I don’t know if this “opting out” of working hard and building a life is a matter of no real opportunities for the young me (the way the Occupy Wall Streeters might have you believe) or if it is merely a matter of not caring because they are “opting out” on life in general?

Well, it was 2.6 in 2010. It was 2.7 in 2009. So, if the trend continues, it is about 2.3 now. The definition of Catholic comes into play, as well as the fact that the Catholic divorce rate is quite high.

The percentage of Catholics married in 2010 was 53% (2008 – 55%). For Catholics aged 18-40 it was 38% (2008 – 40%).

Mormons and conservative Christian denominations take aspects of marriage more seriously than Catholics (who’ve developed a very “beg forgiveness later” approach to certain things, like chastity). It is almost shocking to read guides for young adults on chastity from 1955 – the contrast is incredible from what is recommended today (which is basically “don’t judge”).

I don’t think you can attribute any one cause to it, which is why I said “some of this can be attributed to…”

Lack of economic opportunity certainly has some contribution, but I do think something different is going on. We’ve seen the number of men going on to college plummet, while at the same time the number of girls going on to college has gone up. That can’t be explained by an economic downturn (otherwise the numbers for BOTH boys and girls would be going down).

Another way to assess the marriage situation, and whether it is a strike or merely signal weakening…

Of the men who earn too little, how many are such due to government misandry, and how many by choice (e.g. Roosh, who could be a Scientist, but instead is a PUA surviving on Internet-based income streams)?

The former group would still marry, except women will not have them. Only the latter group counts as truly ‘striking’.

We don’t know the size of either group, but if the latter group is small, then Dalrock is correct in stating that it is not a ‘strike’, but rather just too few men meeting the price that women are demanding, even if the men would like to meet the price.

Keep in mind the Game component too. Of the men who are earning little by choice, if some of them practice competent Game, then they get more women (for casual sex) than the Beta who earns $300K.

Yeah. The “feminine woman” sites and the “girl game” sites like the one you linked to have a specialty of attempting to educate strongindependentwomen ™ on how to ACT feminine and on how to ASSUME THE APPEARANCE of femininity and girlishness.

It’s not authentic; it’s only for the purpose of having their “students” learn how to act the giggly girlish, pleasant, kind, uberfeminine part until the ring and the husband are firmly in her clutches.

Speculating here, but I wonder if this could be tied to the findings that modern men have (on average) lower testosterone levels than they did in the past?

There is a link between confidence levels and testosterone levels. Amy Cuddy has shown that the simple act of standing in a confident pose will raise a man’s testosterone level.

When I graduated high school (a loooooong time ago) there really was a mindset among the men that we were going to go out and conquer the world (and this was in the midst of the Carter economy no less). We were confident; in some ways uber confident. Probably due to the fact that for the past 12 years we had been told by the school system that we could do anything–if we worked hard enough.

But modern school systems aren’t telling boys they can accomplish anything (that’s what they tell girls now, although they leave out the “if you work hard enough” part). They tell boys to sit down, be quiet, and quit acting like…boys! Boys aren’t built up, they are told there is something wrong with them simply for being boys. Consequently, the depart high school with low confidence levels.

Would low confidence levels contribute to low testosterone levels? Are men with low testosterone levels aggressive go-getters? No, in fact they are just the opposite: laid back and apathetic. Whats the stereotype of the male slacker? Laid back and apathetic.

And the more laid back and apathetic they become, they lower their T level goes; and the lower their T level goes, the more laid back and apathetic they become; and the more…

It’s not authentic; it’s only for the purpose of having their “students” learn how to act the giggly girlish, pleasant, kind, uberfeminine part until the ring and the husband are firmly in her clutches.

No, it’s not really “The Rules”. This site John South linked to isn’t telling confident women to be more confident, or play hard to get, or try to control the relationship. This site tells female lawyers and career girl feminists to adopt the appearance of feminine women – you know, wear your hair long; act like a woman; don’t act like a man; a man needs to find you physically attractive; your looks matter, etc.

It all sounds great. But it’s not designed to bring about a change in the woman. It’s just designed to help her put on an act, to “fake it” until she gets the man or husband or whatever it is she wants.

This site tells female lawyers and career girl feminists to adopt the appearance of feminine women – you know, wear your hair long; act like a woman; don’t act like a man; a man needs to find you physically attractive; your looks matter, etc.

It all sounds great. But it’s not designed to bring about a change in the woman. It’s just designed to help her put on an act, to “fake it” until she gets the man or husband or whatever it is she wants.

I would venture to say that the good news here is that most women of this type can’t maintain that kind of facade for very long. It runs so completely counter to their breeding and indoctrination that the mask simply melts off at the first sign of trouble. Only the most milquetoasty, self-deluded mangina dweebs would fail to see through such an act (or, more likely, are so desperate and so self-deluded that they refuse to see it).

That is in “The Rules” book, one of the cardinal virtues of “The Rules.” It is impossible to do “The Rules” without physical attractiveness. If an RG pays the $200 and goes to one of Ellen or Sherrie’s seminars, the first thing they are told is (quite often) lose weight, lots of weight, and grow their hair. Next thing they are told is wear make-up and dresses.

It all sounds great. But it’s not designed to bring about a change in the woman. It’s just designed to help her put on an act, to “fake it” until she gets the man or husband or whatever it is she wants.

That is in “The Rules” book. They have to “fake it” to get married. Never tell him how much debt they have, never discuss TR with their therapist, basically, live a life that is a total and complete LIE until they get the ring and he says “I Do.”

If you want to be frightened deti, tonight, head down to your nearest book store, grab a copy of “The Rules” off the shelf, sit down, read it from cover to cover (its a quick read) and you’ll see a total NLP instruction manual in how to trick men with low self-esteem (aka beta males) into marrying women they shouldn’t marry.

You seem to be giving far more importance to ‘The Rules’ than it warrants.

a) It was written in 1995, before the Internet explosion (note that Game only developed over the course of Internet information-sharing. All Game books before 1995 are pathetic by today’s standards). Neither of the authors managed to marry a high-profile man.
b) It would only work on the type of Gameless beta who is already prone to spending $200 on average-looking women, in return for nothing. You yourself agreed to this.

Why do you care so much about ‘The Rules’? Do you think it can help your daughters, on the ‘beta bucks’ side of the equation?

I actually support ‘The Rules’ to the extent that it expedites the impoverishment of manginas and whiteknights, which is a process that SHOULD be occurring. Any man with Game will be placed in the ‘alpha fuc*s’ column by a Rules Girl, and she will have casual sex with him for free.

Dalrock…something more frightening for women who delay marriage seems to be happening. The problem they have isn’t that they can’t change the men’s minds, but that they can’t change the man at that late stage, at least not in the timeframe they would need to convert him into husband material.

Not to mention the other thing that is happening. That problem isn’t that more and more women can’t change their minds, but they can’t change themselves into a woman worth marrying.
Oddly, this doesn’t seem to frighten women at all…

So men are not easily morphing into suitable husband material, and ‘beta bucks’ are not being produced to a level that the harvesters expect.

The question is, how much of this is because of government misandry, and how much by the men’s own choice?

If the former, then men are still striving to become husband material, and wiling to incur search costs. This would not be a ‘strike’, and these men would still jump at marriage when a woman is ready to settle for them. So they still will do what women want, when they want. They just don’t make as much as women would like to spend.

If the latter, then that means men are not willing to incur search costs, and have instead chosen a life of leisure. That would be more of a ‘strike’…

Even to the degree that it is driven by different choices, I don’t think the bulk of it is a conscious choice to forgo being a beta provider. The headwind against men is of course a factor, but there is also the issue of immediacy of motivation. 18 year old men in 1980 had some strong signals that marriage was on the way soon, and before that, the “boyfriend” game. Even if a man wasn’t thinking about marriage, being in the group that had a girlfriend was pretty appealing. As the decades have rolled on, the median age of first marriage has drawn out (and as I said in the first post the metric can’t measure all of the change). I think very few of these men would tell you they are checking out from marriage, and those who would say such a thing would be relatively easily lured back with the right offer. But the problem is the same basic problem women are running into. After enough years pass by you can’t just make different choices and rewind it all.

If you think about it, this is what makes the current situation so difficult for late marriers to overcome. They would be well suited to shame or seduce any “strikers” into capitulation. This is something far more difficult to overcome.

Well, what this really is, is a battle between fathers and daughters about the importance of her gina tingles.
________________________________

Father : You need to marry a boring beta male so I can have grandchildren who grow up in a stable home !!
Daughter : But I don’t get gina tingles from those Chinese boys you keep telling me to marry!! They are interested in math and have no tattoos!! Bo-ring !
Father : But human reproduction does not require female orgasm. Only the man has to orgasm for children to be produced, which is why all traditional cultures found it necessary to disregard female gina tingles, which the androsphere correctly identifies as superfluous.
Daughter : But I am not haaaaapy with those Beta providers!!! Waaaahhhh!!!
Father : But I want grandkids, and the Beta providers are the best bet for that. The Chinese and Indian beta providers are the only ‘beta bucks’ left at this point. Plus, you can always divorce them for cash and prizes later.
Daughter : No!!!!! Gina tingles are non-negotiable!!! Waaahhh !!!!
________________________________

Fathers like IBB and their daughters need to sort out whether gina tingles or grandkids take precedence, and adjust the legal code to reflect their decision, before they come over here and bother us.

******************************************

Hey, I love me some curry as much as the next gal, but the above is just ridiculous.

First off, it presents a false dichotomy between a math loving provider type and a tattooed exciting type. In today’s world where tattoos are mainstream, plenty of geeks and math nerds have ‘em. And who’s to say geeks and math nerds are “boring”? Its not like math is the be all and end all of a person’s life. Plenty of stable provider type guys also have exciting hobbies. I know one great husband and father with a typical office job by week who’s in a local popular band (with his wife) by weekend. They even travel out of state sometimes for shows.

I know another charismatic dad who’s passion is growing and preparing food and he travels around giving dynamic seminars which enthrall the earthy-crunchy set, and he’s quite physically hot as well. His wife appears completely besotted with him.

Plenty of seemingly regular “beta” folk also have passionate hobbies that they pursue with gusto which make them interesting, complex and dynamic individuals.

As far as the orgasm, there are skills and techniques that can be learned to improve one’s repertoire in the sack. Its not THAT hard.

Keeps dropping. Steady, sustained, somewhat linear, drop. It will never get to ZERO so in that sense you are right, but it will probably keep going lower and lower until it becomes a luxury for some as opposed to something that is a standard part of our culture for all….”

**********************************

About 50% of the couples under the age of 50 that I know have had “commitment ceremonies” or “handfasting ceremonies” to declare their commitment to each other in front of their communities. Some of them have been together for a few decades already.

While legal marriages and church marriages are going the way of the do-do bird, monogamy is not.

(Although it is true that open marriages, plural relationships are on the slow rise as well.)

TFH
“Of the men who earn too little, how many are such due to government misandry, and how many by choice (e.g. Roosh, who could be a Scientist, but instead is a PUA surviving on Internet-based income streams)?”
It is due to government misandry. Men still want to be seen ass great. The sad thing is the great men have to be effeminate fairies. Look at the men in media in particular the sports media men they are the most PC pansies in the world. I think the men that just don’t care and have no drive are real men in character. It is the delusional saps. manginas and white knights working themselves to death. The rest are men afraid of the truth they work and marry because it is the “right” thing to do the lie says so. What we see happening more and more is that the lie is getting harder to tell with fewer men believing in the lie. But the question is with out the lie what is there to live for. Apathy and non productivity when the question cannot be answered. When the lie is removed from a committed man to the lie it is explosive. This is where men like Thomas ball come from and the military suicides. Suicide is a violent act from a “nice guy” ironically the very people society claims it wants refers to them as cowards and nothing is done. Same guy blows up a diner full of cops or beheads a family court judge on video at 20 percent of the rate of suicides and changes will be looked at if only out of self preservation.
The bottom line is all men want pussy or a positive relationship with women. But misandry has removed the desire to work for it to the point most men don’t believe it is possible or even worth it. This is from men that believe the lie. There is no strike and never will be from pussy but what we are seeing is self preservation.

All of this discussion of Mark Minter – The point of it is to redirect you into these ridiculous distractions. Do you think a funded narrative would end with him marrying someone that had not left her good guy ex husband? Welcome to the entity driven media. It’s a beautiful thing. It works because you believe the guy is real.

This Mark Minter blabber is equivalent to going on discussing fiction Character Kate Kavanaugh in “Fifty Shades of Grey” as if she’s a real person. Huh? Yea, that’s the trilogy you forgot exists. Did you know that about 1/3 of women in the 50 U S States have read at least one of the books in that trilogy. That’s right. Most of these women say they believe in God. Mark Minter is alliteration. It’s a nice name developed for this distraction that continues to pull you away from the focus of every genius post. Mark Minter – Kate Kavanaugh – David Deangelo – Kim Kardashian with Kanye West… Invented narratives. So, since you’re off topic with MM-Kate, why not discuss how you feel about 1/3 of women replacing tingles with the trilogy.

Now, back to the women responding to the ‘how should women respond to men withdrawing from courtship’ meme: This delay that is referred to in the post (regarding Tom’s daughters, etc), here’s part of what you missed (we rushed, so the narrative is a bit sloppy) on radio stations nationwide today: http://wp.me/p3P5mL-8D

“Of the men who earn too little, how many are such due to government misandry, and how many by choice (e.g. Roosh, who could be a Scientist, but instead is a PUA surviving on Internet-based income streams)?”

Better to be a PUA surviving on internet-based income streams considering that today’s “scientists” are nothing more than peons for Big Pharma.

MarcusDIt’s also the fact that if a conservative had said what the HHS said, they’d be drawn and quartered, and the “War on Women” cry would be in the air. But, if liberals say it…

Actually it is very useful to have such facts coming out of the science community, since the left prides itself on being “reality oriented”. So when an HHS funded study says essentially the same thing that the righteously angry men are saying, how will the feminists and others react?

They must become more anti-science. This will be very good for men and children, and those women who are not tainted with too much feminism.

In fact, as I have pointed out a couple of places, when women arouse the fight or flight instinct in men and follow them around (can’t fight, can’t leave) they are causing not just emotional harm but actual, physical harm to the men in question.

If a group of people is harming me, withdrawing from their presence is simply self protection.

This idea of a man having to spend money on a woman to “get to know her” is just so laughable.
Historically, how much a man spent had nothing to do with the woman herself, but had to do with proving his worthiness as a suitor to her father, family and clan. Poor women at the bottom of the social hierarchy had no rights, were not courted for marriage and in fact not courted for anything. They were just “taken”, used, abused and discarded, and no one could do anything about it.
The amount men had to spend correlated directly to the ranking of the woman’s father. The more powerful the father, the more the suitor had to “pay” to demonstrate his worthiness.
When you talk about duels to the death, you must be competing for no less than a King’s daughter. Logically it made sense because I can’t think of any reason why a man would put his life at risk courting a woman if she didn’t come with lands, royal titles, treasure, chattels and even standing armies. The “Patriarchy” was the reason behind all these elaborate courtship rituals and it’s funny (but not unexpected) how women would want to rid themselves of the “bad” aspects of Patriarchy while keeping the benefits of it.

And it’s not just your body posture that affects testosterone. When a man assumes a leadership positions in a group his T levels go up (and stay up if he remains in a leadership position for an extended period of time). Conversely, if a man assumes a subservient position in a group, his T level goes down (and stays lower if he remains in a subservient position for an extended period of time).

It’s almost as if our bodies were chemical machines that manipulated our chemical makeup in order to help us perform whatever task we were currently trying to accomplish. ;)

href=””> eight2twelve , the T levels thing for deffo works on mice and rats and stuff. [There are Studies and that, trust me, they’re out there, but I’m under the cosh a bit here, so can’t go skiving off, hunting them down].
Also gross overcrowding and resource stress can bring out “deviant” behaviors (i.e. not strictly eat/shag/breed/eat more, as it ought to be in a state of rodenty Nature) and hormone levels out of whack, as well as status anxiety.
Behaviors that have curious (and previously anathematized) analogues in “civilized” human societies. All v. interestin’.

deti “This site tells female lawyers … to adopt the appearance of feminine women –”
in other words, instructs mako sharks how to put on a nice cuddly-wuddly dolphin style. Till the swimmers are in range …
The girl ostensibly responsible for that site is kinda missing the point.
It’s not wussy brassick men being unable to cope with StrongIndependentEtCeteras, it’s all about the lawyer thing.
Not with a ten-foot electrified pole. I won’t even have male ones as friends (apols., Opus, but probably a relief to you considering ..).
Crivvens! She’ll be demanding I pal up with cops and morgue attendants next.

You write, “We all, men and women, are greatly limited in how much we as individuals can change the current order.”

Yes! But should not women at least try to change the order now that they are dominating the law schools and government agencies which are destroying the family?

Dalrock writes, “However:
1) There is no reason for a woman to postpone marriage and work to change the system first. She can just as well marry first and then push to change the system.
2) A young woman’s greatest contribution would be to marry a worthy man without first becoming Bernankified (Yellenified?) and submit to and support her husband. In this role she can then teach other women as Titus 2 instructs.”

Why can’t a woman in law school both get married and work to change the system? Why can’t a woman try to reform marriage laws, divorce laws, and family law before marrying and submitting to a husband, and then continuing to reform said laws?

Dalrock, the problem with your approach is that you ask nothing of women but to find a husband and submit, thusly ignoring the elephant in the room that women are the majority of college students, the majority of law students, and the majority of government workers in the realm of family law/welfare/etc.

Perhaps you think women are intellectually and morally incapable of reforming the laws that are destroying the family and persecuting men, but then why would a man want to marry one? If said women cannot submit to God’s law in our schools, universities, and law schools, what makes a man think she will submit to God’s law in his home?

I don’t want to threadjack this thread by talking about testosterone levels, but I think there are some interesting ideas that haven’t been explored.

Historically, Japanese males have had (on average) lower T levels than males in other parts of the world. Why? Perhaps part or the reason is Japanese society puts a high value on males who conform to society. Males who show the attributes associated with lower T level (more cooperative, less aggressive, more submissive to authority) do better in Japanese society. Perhaps their body adjusts down their T levels in an effort to give them the attributes that will help them succeed in Japanese society? Or conversely, maybe their efforts to be submissive to society has caused their T levels to fall?

Regardless of whether the chicken or egg came first, it’s interesting to note that the first (and largest) mass dropout of males is occurring in Japan. A country with low T levels and submissive males.

The T levels for American males has fallen (even adjusted for age). Why?

Perhaps part of the reason is American boys are now taught (much like their Japanese counterparts) to suppress their aggressiveness; to value cooperation over individual achievement; to put aside their personal goals in favor of the greater good. In other words, to be more submissive.

And now we’re seeing large numbers of American males dropping out, just as we’re seeing in Japan.

Plain and simple, if you’re a man who actively courts women with dinners and fancy dates then you are a complete chump and I don’t feel sorry for your dumb azz. Players and non-players alike have realized that this is a losing game, especially if sex hasn’t been put on the table.

This is my SOP for dating these days…

Date 1: A couple of drinks at a bar, good conversation and kino. If things are going well invite back to my place or go to hers. Total cost ~$30

Date 2: If I didn’t sleep with her on the first night then invite her over for wine and a movie. Almost assuredly seals the deal. Total cost ~$15

Date 3+: If I like her, the sex was good, we click, etc. then start doing activities such as dinners, movies, gym, museums. No promise of commitment in sight, but we enjoy each others’ company. If Date 2 was not enjoyable for any reason then Date 3+ doesn’t happen.

Jason, you’re still spending too much money. First dates shouldn’t cost you more than $10. Unless the chemistry is there and you go for the same night lay. No same night lay means you shouldn’t have spent that kind of money. If the girl objects to the cheapness of the date (rare, but it’s happened to me), you should thank her for showing you how she is as you delete her phone number. Women shouldn’t be rewarded for demanding that men spend big money on a first date. Even $30 is big money to me.

Once the relationship is established with someone you like, then sure, spend the money. Just remember the spending should only happen AFTER she has qualified herself to you.

As to dowries, since it is an old custom, and anyhow most people don’t understand the old way of the matriarchy/granmatriarchy, they have reported badly or confusedly.

First, resources given from her family to a bride as her personal property are not a “dowry”, strictly speaking, they are more an “endowment”. It was common among noble families to ensure that a noble born bride could live in style regardless of the destiny of her husband.

Dowry properly intended is nearly always demanded by the mother of the man to be paid by the mother of the woman, to ensure that she be compensated for letting have a share of the output of her son.

Many men don’t realize this, but in the past “civilization” has been run for the benefit of women, who have treated men as livestock; the power, wealth, lifestyle of a woman depended on the quality and number of men she controlled.

Typically a woman would want to raise a number of livestock as pension assets; once raised she would retire and would be kept by their income. In order to be able to raise children as pension asset livestock they needed to find and domesticate an adult livestock so that its work would fund the raising of the younger livestock, and then conveniently leave her a widow enjoying on her own the fruits of the labor of her younger properties. Adult livestock wopuld marry their owners-to-be in exchange for as-close-as-possible guaranteed paternity of the firstborn.

Men make much more profitable livestock than women, because they can be made to work harder and longer, and are better at fighting if necessary; therefore women would tend to abort female offspring, as it happens still in poor countries, to avoid sharing the output of their sons with their daughters. Traditionally women would aim however to have several robust, hard working male chldren first, and then a last female child to be her caregiver instead.

Some women would try to discourage their sons to have relationships with women *at all*, and a lot of homosexuality is due to that desire of mothers to avoid sharing the profits of raising her property with other women.

Other women would reason that grandchildren were also a good pension asset, in an extended family setting, but then would demand that the mother of the bride, who was very happy to give away a less profitable member of her stable, would compensate her for sharing the output of her son with his bride.

of course all of the above has always been covered by thick veils of hypchrisy and euphemisms, but it still happens in many parts of the world, either the poorest rural villages, or those of relatively recent development. For example jewish/italian/japanese mothers still put a lot of pressure on sons to choose the most profitable careers, and obsess on them to become most profitable livestock for them; and indian mothers still abort less profitable daughters when they can, and demand from other mothers considerable dowries to add to their families their daughters.

So to summarize dowries existed/exist when matriarchs demand compensation to share their properties with other younger women.

It is an ancient and nearly universal way of doing things that relatively few people in first-world countries have seen or even heard of.

So, old men who are attracted to young women are perverts? Says who? Oh, yeah, you did, sorry.

As I have made clear this is an artificial cultural belief. In the USA, older men with younger women is considered sick and evil. In other countries, they only want to know if the young woman is willing. If so, it is her business, not yours. Period.

And, that is the way it should be.

This does bring up a point I have addressed in the past. Not only does the American culture hate all men, but especially it hates old men. Even old men hate old men.

I told my wife’s best friend that in the USA old men are called old farts. She looked like she wanted to vomit. In Mexico, they respect old men — if, of course, the old man is a good man. No such thing as a good, old man exists in the US. You can’t see that for the most part, any more than a family which eats boiled cabbage every meal can smell boiled cabbage.

I will tell you who is the pervert. Any one, man or woman, who thinks there is something wrong with an old man with a willing young woman. That is really sick. Living in a sick society, you don’t know how sick it is.

In the words of an 18 year old woman who asked a cousin for his baby when he was 58 years old, older men treat you better; they are more responsible; and they are more affectionate. That is what she wanted. Being married to the Strongest Woman In the World, he turned her down.

In my village, the Rich Old Bastard, when he was 78, had a baby with a 20 year old ranch girl. He set her up in housekeeping as his wife, though legally she is probably what is called a concubina (not married but with certain legal status akin to our civil partner.) No one was scandalized or offended. A friend told me as long as they both get what they want, her a better life for herself and her child(ren), him a snuggle bunny and new child, all is well. Not your business!

I will give an example of how they respect old men. A few years ago, when an uncle was around 91 years old, he had business in the country seat offices. (Not what they are called in Mexico.) I pulled up in front of the palace, and ran around to help him out of the car. He was very feeble. As soon as it became apparent an old man needed help out of the car, the vehicles which were blocked from going on, became totally silent. The drivers waited patiently without a single honk from a horn, or a curse out their window. Imagine what would happen in the US. There would probably be gunfire, heh, heh.

I forgot an important point, IBB. I do not chase younger women. About once a year, a very young woman tries to hit on me. When I was 64, a 14 year old girl fell head over heels in love with me. Scared me half to death.

She was a friend. Eventually her mom figured it out and started making it hard for me to visit her. It hurt my feelings until I realized it was not I the mother was worried about.

Not only does IBb hate old men. He (she?) also does not understand the aggressive nature of women including young women.

..what is anti-MGTOW?
The “man-up!”, get-out-of-this-trench-and-charge-those-machine-gun-emplacements/that-column-of-panzers-or-I’ll-shoot-you-in-the-back crowd. Like the NKVD.
R.E.M.F.s
A.K.A Tradcons, So(cial)Cons(ervatives), White Knights, and hopeless old fossils, whose limited progeny has turned out to be entirely female and somewhat repellent. For reasons they can never, ever grasp.
The WW1 Western Front generals .. of the manosphere. But less perceptive and adaptable.

71, “When I was 64, a 14 year old girl fell head over heels in love with me. Scared me half to death. She was a friend. Eventually her mom figured it out and started making it hard for me to visit her. It hurt my feelings….”

Hold on. You were “friends” with a 14 year old kid?! I’m merely in my early 30s yet consider myself an “auntie” to teenagers, not their “friend”.

UKFred, I read your link. My opinion is that government should not have any involvement in the way adult humans choose to form marriages and families. I purposely kept the government out of my own marriage for this reason. I know some couples in plural marriages/open relationships and its a mixed bag as to how they are functioning. Some keep it totally separate from their family life while others are open about it and involve their partners in family dinners. Of the ones that are open with their kids about it, some of their kids are clearly disturbed by it while other kids are happy to have their parents’ “partners” as part of their lives

One thing is for sure – its increasing. I don’t see it ever becoming the majority relationship way because humans are wired for mate possession and jealousy, but it will keep on keeping on.

I’m an old(-ish) man. But like your good self, I’m no fossil. The Manup&MarrydaHoor fellows are not necessarily Bad People per se, but like you and I grew up in the Past, which as we all know is a foreign country, where things were done differently. And that is where they fall down. They are unaware that Time has Passed, and have failed to notice what was going on around them.
So-oo-oo … where were you and what were you doing when John Kennedy was shot? Fifty years on Friday, eh? Don’t seem it.

One thing that gets to me about this culture is the disrespect for the elderly. Or even disrespect for parents. The way parents and grandparents and old people are portrayed in the media well, its just not right. They show kids always trying to get away from spending time with their parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, as if its something normal, cute and funny. Its none of those things.

But you know i do have to say this. I think (or I hope) that this culture is the only one with 4 generations of a family surfing porn and trying to get laid off the internet. 10 year old Jane and Junior are surfing porn, so are their 30 something year old parents, so are their 50 something year old grandparents and so are their 70 something year old great-grandparents. And if those parents, grandparents and great-grandparents are divorced, you can be sure their surfing the net to get laid too.

When I think about this its no wonder there is no respect for elders in this culture. Why bother when they are no more honorable than the young folk?

I think respect for the elderly is important. But more important is that the elderly act respectable.

Hold on. You were “friends” with a 14 year old kid?! I’m merely in my early 30s yet consider myself an “auntie” to teenagers, not their “friend”.

People, especially in other cultures (71 is in rural Mexico, I believe), can have different kinds of relationships than you do. I sense shaming in your comment (as if there is something wrong with him relating to teenagers differently than you do), but correct me if I’m wrong. Perhaps a more tactful way to ask your question (if you are genuinely curious) might be, “How do you relate to teenagers at the friend level?” I’ve read a lot of 71’s comments here and on the Spearhead; women in his area start families in their teen years, some possibly as young as 14. The teenagers there are likely more mature than your typical 24-32-year-old unwed, childless American woman because they are expected to be (by older members of their community).

The “man up and buy stale fish” crowd are necessarily old, because they have imported their irrelevant, non-functional assumptions unmodified from the middle of the last century.
Therefore they’re ethically fossilized.
Plenty of us coffin-dodgers are not (in my own opinion, &c. of course), and can see things fairly objectively, or at least know when some lying bastard/bitch is lying to us .
Now git off my lawn.

Marissa, “People, especially in other cultures (71 is in rural Mexico, I believe), can have different kinds of relationships than you do.”

True. I come from an extremely family oriented culture.

In my culture a person old enough to be my grandparent would be a friend to my grandparents while being a respected grandparent-like figure to me.

So yeah, there’s for sure a cultural difference here. As you can see with my distaste that in the USA 4 generations of a family are all doing the same thing – surfing porn and trying to get laid off the internet – and its considered “normal”.

Some of this is merely an attempt to twist that which is good and proper into the US version of old men with any contact with young girls as sexual and somehow perverted.

I also have a couple little friends, (No one in Mexico would object to that usage, that is strictly American.) Sisters. One is 5 now, the older is 7. When I go visit them, they come running for forehead kisses. And, we play.

Once another uncle was there, and the girls and I were on one foot, holding hands, hopping together. He came out and told me how much it touched his heart to see me playing with those girls

They do call me Tio, because that is what they call older men. It is just a name of respect. The only other choice would be my personal name, which is tabu for treating old men in Mexico.

In the case of the 14 year old, she was studying English in school, and when I walked by, she would drag out her books and I would help her We laughed and joked and talked about life and things. I see no reason not to use the word friends.

When she was 14 and I learned she was head over heels for me, it scared me. I have a friend, a mature woman and asked her about it. She said it is not unusual for girls in that age bracket to have a major crush on a mature teacher or other mature man who treats them with courtesy and respect. She said, don’t worry. She will outgrow it, but she will never forget you. And, there is a good chance she will seek a husband who is much like you. She admitted that when she was that age, she did exactly the same thing with a school teacher who treated her with respect. And, she married a man much like that teacher.

She is now 23 years old, almost finished college. On the Day of the Dead, she and her sisters came back to town to visit the cemetery and the family dead. I stopped and much like when she was 14, we chatted about things in our lives. I am sure if you asked her who I was, she would say a friend from her childhood.

There is a term which is used to describe North Americans who insist on forcing their cultural beliefs on all cultures. “Ugly American.”

One correction, though. They do not start families only at age 14. 35 years ago, a girl in my part of town got pregnant by a 25 year old man. In Mexico, after 12, the family makes the decision to prosecute for statutory, not the cops.

After some discussion they all agreed the girl had been ready and willing. So, she became his woman and they raised up three children to be good citizens. Instead of the family supporting and caring for those kids, the couple did it. She is now 47 and he is 60. There was some laughter, but that was about it. Justice had been done. And, the 12 year old girls around her realized they had better keep their knees together or they’d be washing; scrubbing; cooking; and caring for babies. A good deal for everyone. And, the man went off to work every day to support them.

In the US, we think we have a better way, so those 12 year old baby mamas are allowed to create major ghettoes in our inner cities at tax payer expense.

My wife’s great-grandma was married at age 14. Why? In those days, unwed motherhood was stigmatized, and so when a girl was ‘READY’ she was married, and did not necessarily have any choice in the matter. They simply could not afford to have unwed mothers in a family. Even her brothers were ruined by it.

Ri Ri, what culture do you hail from? It is indeed a shame what mainstream family culture has become in the U.S.

I felt uncomfortable when I first read 71’s comments about rural Mexican life because it was so different from my upbringing and conditioning. When I realized it was similar to the practices of rural Americans (and many other traditional cultures) more than 100 years ago, it warmed my heart because I would prefer a culture much more like that now (though the Mexican culture he experiences is clearly different in some respects).

Thank you for the unique perspective, 71. What’s so sad is that it used to be a common one that is all but lost to most first-world Westerners.

“There is a term which is used to describe North Americans who insist on forcing their cultural beliefs on all cultures. “Ugly American.”

If by North America you mean the USA, they are called “ugly Americans” because American (USA) “culture” is ugly.

But the mom and daughter were North American, right? Mexico is North America.

So if by “North Americans who insist on forcing their cultural beliefs on all cultures” you mean USA in particular and not including Mexico, well then the mother cutting off contact is not an example of a US citizen forcing her cultural beliefs on all cultures but rather an example of a Mexican woman cutting off contact because she thought it was inappropriate.

Or do you perhaps mean she was forcing that belief on you?

Another thing to consider is that the US is world renown for porn, child porn, pedophilia and sex tourists to countrires where children are accessed. Accurately or inaccurately this what many people around associate with the US and its citizens. Are you a US citizen? Sad to say but regardless of the harmless intentions, the mom may have been suspect of you if you are not Mexican yourself.

Anonymous age 71 says:
November 20, 2013 at 4:06 pm
I stopped and much like when she was 14, we chatted about things in our lives. I am sure if you asked her who I was, she would say a friend from her childhood.

Back in my school teacher days: one of my students (a dead ringer for the actress Anne Hathaway), came from a pretty dysfunctional family and had some daddy issues. She was an incorrigible flirt… she was also my teacher’s aide one semester, and in two or three of my classes as well. One day there was some sort of school function and a lot of kids had extended family there (it might have been Grandparent’s Day). I happened to walk by the table she where she was sitting with her family and she grabbed me to introduce me to her grandmother. She said, “This is my friend Mr. Lyn87.” It struck me as odd that she introduced me as her “friend” rather than her “teacher.” It didn’t bother me… it just struck me as odd.

Marissa said Hold on. You were “friends” with a 14 year old kid?! I’m merely in my early 30s yet consider myself an “auntie” to teenagers, not their “friend”.

People, especially in other cultures (71 is in rural Mexico, I believe), can have different kinds of relationships than you do. I sense shaming in your comment (as if there is something wrong with him relating to teenagers differently than you do), but correct me if I’m wrong.

You hit the nail exactly on the head. I also detected shaming in Ri Ri’s comment, although she may not necessarily have intended it. This is, alas, a reaction typical of people in the Anglosphere who have never traveled to or lived among cultures with different attitudes on this topic (I lived in Greece for several years, a country where it is not only not uncommon, but normal for a woman to be at least ten or twenty years younger than her husband).

I am not totally sure what you are talking about there. I plainly said it took me a while, but I finally realized the mother was more concerned about her daughter, not me. How that becomes a discussion of why the mother did not trust me, I have no idea.

I am moderator on 4 boards. I tell members it is always a bad idea to write about things you know nothing about. This is especially true when writing about another culture you know little or nothing about, and when you are ignoring what a person who has lived in that culture for many years has told you.

Even people who have lived in a culture all their lives do not fully understand all aspects fo their own culture. But, before you argue with someone who has some knowledge, you should have some basis other than your own imagination at work.

Living in Mexico was a cultural shock for me. But, I keep observing and asking questions of intelligent people and I learn. When I first went there, I noted that young men and women did not ever go in cars alone, together as we do in the US. I asked a cousin, father of two attractive daughters, if this were because the men were that aggressive. He laughed and said, no, if they drove past a motel it is as likely to be the girl who suggests stopping off there as the boy. And, due to strange circumstances, I well knew both daughters were sexually active, one of them extremely so. I am not sure if their dad knew the truth and tried to hide it, or if he actually believed his daugthers were still virgins. The most active one was extremely clever at making up stories to explain why she got home an hour late, even though I knew she was lying. (Example: one day she said the bus broke down. I knew the wife of the driver and the bus did not break down at all.)

They are realistic about female sexuality. Which is why after age 12 the family makes the decision to prosecute for statutory, not the cops. And, often the family realizes the girl was willing, and no purpose is served by tossing the boy/man in jail. In the US we have the myth of stupid, mindless girls who do not know what they are doing.

>>But the mom and daughter were North American, right? Mexico is North America.

This is a debate often held on Mexico forums. This comes about because of confusion between two systems.The Mexicans, that is, the educated ones, strongly deny they are part of North America.

Geographers made up their own rules. And broke the planet into continents for their own purposes. Those purposes are not binding on Mexico, and Mexico says it is not part of North America. It is Mexico. So, the difference is between a geographers decision made without consulting Mexico, and the Political decision by Mexico what to call itself. Period.

And, in Mexico, they refer to North America as the US and Canada. All you do when you argue this is (see comment on Ugly American above).

Lyn87 says:
November 20, 2013 at 9:44 pm
(re: friend for a teacher:) Exactly so. Thank you for sharing this. We have too many very argumentative people here and I think the correct name is p****ng contest in many cases. People wanting to twist things around to make good look bad for their own motives, rather than taking a posting at its own value.

Some may wonder what good comes from writing about Mexico when most here live in the USA. In modern times, affluent people do not consider their children to be educated until they have lived a couple of years in another culture. We take things for granted in our own culture, even things which other societies view as totally perverted and sick, because we have no frame of reference.

I did not fully understand how badly American men are treated until I spent time in Mexico, where it is women who are treated badly. Though when men abandon Mexican wives, they do not usually take the children and hide them, then force the mothers to send money, as AW do to AM.

Oh, I forgot another argument. At times, someone will get all outraged beause an American refers to himself as an American. And, so someone pontificates that all people in North and South American are also Americans.

Not so.

The official name of the USA is the United States of America. The only nation on the planet which has the name American in it. So, it is correct to call citizens of the USA Americans, and it is wrong to refer to anyone else as Americans.

Mexico’s legal names is The United States of Mexico and they are thus called Mexicans.

“”Note that players have turned the tables here, and it is now women who have to first demonstrate skin in the game.””

Truer words have never been spoken! I know a few friends that are serious PLAYERS! I am a Player also but,I have too much responsibilities to chase pussy all day…..and it gets you NOWHERE!……But,the thing I want to get across to you about Players(that I know)…….they HATE women! I am very serious.I have more than one friend who makes the big bucks,wears the designer suits,drives the “ultimate sports cars” and they “Hate Women”. They know very well the “score” in the game! It is a “buyer’s market”….and the men are not BUYING! These guys use women like you would not believe! They do not pay for anything!!!….”You want to go out with me…pay your own F****** way!….L*…..I agree with them in a sense that “you do not have a g/f or wife….because pussy is sooooo rampant”…..but,I disagree with the fact about “Using People”.These guys do not care…..wimminz are TOOLS(this I agree with)….but to just go out of your way in order to USE people is not right! The other side of the equation…..the wimminz would not be an active participant if they were not interested!…..Shalom!

So to ask a question (and not implying): Do u dislike OLD-COUGARS chasing young men ?? Do u agree that these old hags are perverts too?

No, absolutely not. No because men and women are not the same.

From a moral standpoint, a woman’s value can be ruined. Her value is (sometimes) predicated on her intact hymen. Sick that that is (the belief among men to lonly value women that no other man has had), men still value purity in women. The purity IS her value for choosing a wife. At one time, her purity/virginity was her ONLY value! Believe it or not, that is the root of the diamond engagement ring, an intact hymen (or at the very least, money to her should he f-ck her before wedding day and then run.)

The same can NOT be said of women and how they value men. Women are not perverts for wanting to deflower virgin boys the way old men most certainly are when they deflower younger girls. Nothing was taken from boys the way a girl’s virginity is taken from her once that penis crossing the line and breaks that membrane. His marital value to does not “decline” in the eyes of other women, simply because he has been “had” by that old cougar.

They are not equal. They are not equal because men and women do not value the same things in the opposity sex when choosing a mate. That is why we have so many guys around here so pissed off they can’t find a virgin to “pair bond.”

I normally have your back but you’re all wet on this. A guy I used to work with was routinely seduced / molested (depending on your view of it) by a 35-year-old woman when he was 15. He was a willing participant (EXACTLY like most teenage girls who go for older men – the Lolita Syndrome), but it screwed him up pretty seriously. He’s a tall, good-looking, personable guy, so once he got to college he turned into a complete player – no respect for women AT ALL. He went through co-eds like I change my socks because that “cougar” had taught him that sex was a game.

He felt pretty bad about it later in life, but it certainly left him conflicted: he knew what he was doing at the time – and not being female he was unwilling to blame her for his participation. On the other hand, he also knew how much it left him jaded when he was old enough to understand what it had cost him.

I don’t know the answer: maybe it is to return to a more realistic idea of human sexuality: once a female finishes puberty at 15 to 17 her father would marry her off to an 18-22 year old man who had, by that time, established himself as capable of being a husband. It would have costs to society, but it would definitely be 95% better than the chaos we have now.

I normally have your back but you’re all wet on this. A guy I used to work with was routinely seduced / molested (depending on your view of it) by a 35-year-old woman when he was 15. He was a willing participant (EXACTLY like most teenage girls who go for older men – the Lolita Syndrome)

That is criminal behavior. The fact that your 35-year-old woman would get (maybe) 18 months probation and would have to list herself as a sex-offender in the neighborhood for doing this, while a 35 year old man would get 20 years in prison for doing that to a 15 year old girl (and that is the way it was LONG BEFORE FEMINISM) further illustrates my point that men and women are not equal. Even the ancients knew that the young boy was not “ruined” the way the young girl was. Thus were the root of the morals.

He’s a tall, good-looking, personable guy, so once he got to college he turned into a complete player – no respect for women AT ALL. He went through co-eds like I change my socks because that “cougar” had taught him that sex was a game.

Exactly, he was tall, good looking, and personable. That is WHY she was having sex with him. The sex she gave him, gave him his CONFIDENCE that he BECAME a total player in college. His was tall, good looking, and personable (your words) plus he had all that sexual confidence when he was so much younger, he probably had to beat the Co-Eds off with a stick. To him, it WAS a game.

But he wasn’t ruined. His value did not decrease because of what she did to him. It only increased it. The women worshipped him. Which leads me to my next question…

– and not being female he was unwilling to blame her for his participation. On the other hand, he also knew how much it left him jaded when he was old enough to understand what it had cost him.

Did what happened to him cost him marriage? Is he still a lonely bachelor today?

No, he’s not a bachelor. He became a Lieutenant Colonel (like I did) and retired from the military. It didn’t ruin his employability, but it DID seriously hamper his ability to deal with women in a Christian manner. He ended up marrying a rich girl, and now he works for her (he is actually her employee). It’s too soon to say how that will work out in the long run – being subordinate to your wife is very beta, but having lots of money can cover a lot of problems that would destroy a less well-off couple, so who knows?

And when you say that his value increased, you’re equating college hook-up SMV with value. I would posit that that’s a poor metric. It obviously enhanced his ability to fornicate in college, so according to the PUA metric of “Hedonism is Good and Anything That Gets Me Laid is Righteous,” it enhanced his “value.” On the other hand, he certainly contributed to the inability of many college girls to pair-bond with their own husbands later, so the net result of this was overwhelmingly negative for everyone involved, as well as numerous innocent third-parties (the husbands and children of the women he “gamed”).

That’s something I never understood about the man-o-sphere, especially the ostensibly “Christian” portion of it – the willingness to hold PUA’s to a lower standard than sluts. At least a slut is only ruining one woman’s ability to pair-bond with her husband: her own. A PUA who uses “game” to fornicate ruins the pair-bonding ability of many women, who will then frivorce their husbands and destroy their children’s lives as well. How many of the co-eds he banged ended up as alpha-widows because of the “tall, good-looking, personable guy” they slept with in college and detonated their marriages later? I don’t know, but I would be surprised if the answer is “Zero.”

I never understood about the man-o-sphere, especially the ostensibly “Christian” portion of it – the willingness to hold PUA’s to a lower standard than sluts. At least a slut is only ruining one woman’s ability to pair-bond with her husband: her own.

This is contradicted by your story of the slut that violated one man who then went on to wreak havock with other women.

The damage sluts cause isn’t confined to just herself, it also damages the men they “sleep” with, the chaste women who’re deprived of husbands because men can “rent instead of buying” as well as their own selves.

This site John South linked to… female lawyers and career girl feminists to adopt the appearance of feminine women – you know, wear your hair long; act like a woman; don’t act like a man; a man needs to find you physically attractive; your looks matter, etc.

Yawn. That’s nothing every TV cosmetics ad and Cosmo magazine cover aren’t already blaring a million times every day.

It all sounds great. But it’s not designed to bring about a change in the woman. It’s just designed to help her put on an act, to “fake it” until she gets the man or husband or whatever it is she wants.
–deti

When you catch one of these “career girl feminists” trying to “fake it”, counter-program their brains with a little hubba, hubba, you go girl, fake it ’til you can make it baby! Remember, if she’s playing at being a feminist but really, really wants a bicycle to come pedal her away from all that law office drudgery and career girl work then you know that there’s a Total Woman inside her screaming at men to let her out. (Heh heh.)

There is a term which is used to describe North Americans who insist on forcing their cultural beliefs on all cultures. “Ugly American.”

Yep. That might as well be the official name for current American foreign and military policy.
–feeriker

Perhaps you’re unaware that in the book of that name, it was the US State Department bureaucrats who were figuratively “The Ugly American” while the character that was literally “The Ugly American” was a good guy and beloved by the people of the Southeast Asian village in which he and his wife lived.

Whenever one hears the US Establishment Media berate average US citizens as the “Ugly American” you know you’ve found a dodo who has never read the book. Or maybe even a book.

“A PUA who uses “game” to fornicate ruins the pair-bonding ability of many women, who will then frivorce their husbands and destroy their children’s lives as well.”

Incorrect. Each woman ruins herself. We aren’t talking about sexual assaults here; we’re talking about consensual activity between two adults.

The PUA ruins only himself, but he’s not ruined until his partner count gets into the hundreds (assuming he seeks repentance as well for his sinful lifestyle.)

I run in circles where I encounter skilled alphas. One of them described his encounter with a college freshman who wore a purity ring and invited him to church. He declined, stating he was an atheist. Shortly later, she gave him her virginity, but declared she will keep wearing her purity ring for the sake of her church friends and family.

Is this the PUA’s fault? I say it is not. Perhaps it is the young girl’s parents’ fault for sending her into college, which is basically a hostile breeding ground, but the fault lies with the young girl and the fact that her virginity is a sham, her Christian faith means nothing to her, and that she is willing to lie in order to seek the approval of men rather to seek Christ and acknowledge she is a sinner.

I breathed a quick prayer for her that she might find repentance before she dies, and that the PUA might find Christ as well. For what it’s worth, the PUA is a lot closer to understanding Christ’s kingdom and reading the Bible than the girl seems to be.

A few more comments on this alpha male; he currently has multiple partners, all of whom are aware they are not exclusive. His “main plate” in his rotation really wants a relationship, but won’t ask. It’s clear he likes her and cares about her.

I exhorted him to stand strong and refuse exclusivity, cohabitation, or thoughts of engagement/marriage. It is tragic and sad that this is how I advise a young man: but I know that ones he offers her exclusivity, emotional intimacy, and the prospect of cohabitation and marriage, her tingles for him will dry up and he’s on a one-way trip to domestic-violence court or a divorce attorney.

[I exhorted him to stand strong and refuse exclusivity, cohabitation, or thoughts of engagement/marriage. It is tragic and sad that this is how I advise a young man: but I know that ones he offers her exclusivity, emotional intimacy, and the prospect of cohabitation and marriage, her tingles for him will dry up and he’s on a one-way trip to domestic-violence court or a divorce attorney.]

Not necessarily, because “LTR game”, works too, as some really interesting comments in other blogs attest, see below for links.

There are two downsides to it though: it grinds you down more, as it requires constant, rather than intermittent, being entirely in the “game” frame, and if it is like having the tiger by the tail: if you falter, and have a down/weak period, the tingle dries and as you say then BOOM!

The first of the two by “Jabberwocky” is one of the strongest reports on how “LTR game” works well (and a most interesting focused report on the very essense of “game”) but is also a constant grind:

I can’t quite figure out this blog. I was googling to see if anyone had written about women, marriage, and fertile years from a Christian perspective. I find the writing interesting, but the commenters seem divided between Bible-believing Christians and flat-out misogynists labeling women as “fatties” or whatever else they personally find undesirable (or maybe some are trolls; I don’t know).

I think the Christian world has spiritualized singleness and “contentment” to the point that poor single women are busy being “content” or being shamed about it while the best years for marriage fly by, and people try to deny reality by acting as though “God’s best” is more likely to come around the age of 35. That isn’t how it works. If someone wishes to have biological children (or to have an optimal chance of getting married), she needs to be serious about it earlier.

I believe the blog author, Dalrock, or a likeminded commenter, said–here or on a related blog post–that if a woman puts her mind to getting married she will receive a proposal within a reasonable amount of time. I think this is pretty much true. We have tons of qualifiers now: “So not the right time.” “I’m in school.” “I need to work on my relationship with the Lord.” Etc., etc.

Moreover, I can’t even have a conversation about this with many Christians because it will sound as though I am advocating that women throw themselves at men. Far from it. But isn’t there a middle ground between throwing oneself and the get-thither vibe? I think so. In fact, dare I say I think I’ve used it successfully.

Anyway…pardon the long ramble. If you all could enlighten me on this blog, I’d appreciate it.

[D: Welcome Katie. You are right that there are multiple viewpoints expressed here. This is standard in the internet, but arguably more pronounced in this sphere. One post you might find relevant is How young should a woman marry? You may also want to see the last paragraph in this post. I also wrote this post responding to a woman looking to marry in her 30s.]

OH MY GOD, IS EVERYONE BLIND HERE?
The main reason why guys are not willing to spend big amounts of money on courting women anymore is because they look at the horrible devastation that recently divorced men are having in our female-centric family courts. The risk-reward ratio is showing guys that women are JUST NOT WORTH THE EFFORT anymore, there is way too much to lose when one gets into a serious relationship with a woman, legally and financially, and in these days of hard-to-find employment, no sane man is going to try to chase the women the way they were before this “KILL-THE-MAN-IN-COURT” thing started.

Dalrock hit everything in OP except understanding girl game for a prospective wifery upperees although that was covered with “The Rules” by IBB (best Troll I have ever seen in all my blogging years) and the incomparable Deti and others about 2/3 of the way down.

“That’s something I never understood about the man-o-sphere, especially the ostensibly “Christian” portion of it – the willingness to hold PUA’s to a lower standard than sluts. At least a slut is only ruining one woman’s ability to pair-bond with her husband: her own. A PUA who uses “game” to fornicate ruins the pair-bonding ability of many women, who will then frivorce their husbands and destroy their children’s lives as well. How many of the co-eds he banged ended up as alpha-widows because of the “tall, good-looking, personable guy” they slept with in college and detonated their marriages later? I don’t know, but I would be surprised if the answer is “Zero.”

That depends upon the PUA. For example, Tucker Max said that in his active PUA days, he almost exclusively went after women that clearly were already serious sluts. Not only were they easier to bed, he felt way less of any hint of shame in nailing an already-firmly established bonafide slut. After all, if you move a 29-YO habitual barfly from N40 to N41, the effect is much less than moving an N0 or N1 up by one.

Contraception did exist in ancient times, so it’s not to great a leap to assume that Hebrews and Christians in ancient times were aware of it. There also were concoctions that women drank to induce menstruation if a pregnancy was unwanted (inducing a miscarriage). It would appear that there is nothing new under the sun.

Nevertheless, I can’t find where permission is given for Christians to decide who lives and who dies, not in what you wrote and not in the Bible (and I’m not talking about a judicial process when I say this).

“I have no problem with a woman who gets an education and a job as, say, a physician. But, she (and her father) is not later allowed to complain that there aren’t attractive men to marry; or that the so-called “Christian” men push her for sex;; or that all the attractive men don’t want her; or that her demanding work schedule leaves no time for quality dating; or that she is perceived as a ballbuster or too much hassle because of her education/training/earning power.”

I do have a problem with such a woman. Posted elsewhere:

“Being an M.D. is a very good example of a job category that should very largely be filled by man. First, the g requirements are such that not 1/4 of women are as potentially capable as men. (You ARE aware that the brains distribution curves are quite different for women as opposed to men, with men’s much flatter, such that most idiots and most geniuses and near-geniuses are men, I hope.) All too commonly, a 125 IQ female displaces a 130-135 IQ male from med school slots because of AA. Presuming no less in the way of character virtues, that’s not the best outcome for anyone but the chick and NOW.

Further, women M.D.s tend not to go into the more demanding (and needed) specialties such as surgery and emergency medicine, instead disproportionately opting for dermatology, family practice, psychiatry, pediatrics, and such. Most damningly WRT letting any chicks into tax-assisted medical school slots, given how small a fraction tuition is of the costs of training an M.D, is how they often drop out for years not too long after residency (but not nearly soon enough to bear a child while genetically at their healthiest), and only ever coming back to work PT, if they ever come back at all.

Good article on how admitting large numbers of women into medical schools is destroying a major Western nation’s health care system: